Natural Religion Insufficient, and Revealed Necessar)% 
to Man's Happiness in his Present State : 



OR, A 

RATIONAL INQUIRY 

INTO THE 

PRINCIPLES 

OE THE 

MODERN DEISTS; 

WHEREIN 

IS LARGELY DISCOVERED THEIR UTTER INSUFFICIENCY 
TO ANSWER THE GREAT ENDS OF RELIGION, AND TIJE 
WEAKNESS OF THEIR PLEADINGS FOR THE 
SUFFICIENCY OF NATURE'S LIGHT 
TO ETERNAL HAPPINESS: 

AND PARTICTLAELY 

The Writings of the late learned "LenD Herbeht, the great Patron of Deism, 
to wit, his Books de Vekttate, de Religiobte Gentiuusi, and Religio, 
Laici in so far as they assert Nature's Light able to conduct us 
to future Blessedness, are considered, and fully answered. 

TO WHICH IS ADDED, 

AN ESSAY ON THE TRUE GROUND OF FMTH. 
By the late Reverend Mr. THOMAS HALYBURTON, 

Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. 

A scorner seeketh wisdom and findeth it not : but knowledge is easy UHto him 
that under standeth. Pro v. xiv. 6. 

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or whether I speak of myself. John vii. 17. 

Solis nosse Deos & coeli numina vohis, 

Aut solis nescircj datum. Lucan. de Drnid. 



ALBANY: J 
PRINTED BY H. C. SOUTHWICK, 

3V0, 73, STATE-STREET. 



1812, 



PREFACE. 



The God of glory hath not left himself without a 
witness; all his works do, after their manner declare his 
glory. Ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee ; 
and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee : Or speak 
to the earth, and it shall teach thee ; and the Jishes of the 
sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these, 
that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this ? Job xii. 7, 
8, 9. Moreover it hath pleased him to instamp upon the 
consciences of men, such deep impressions of his being 
and glory, that all the powers and subtilty of hell, shall 
never be able to eradicate them : Though, alas ! through 
a custom of sin, and especially against much light and 
conviction, the consciences of many are debauched in 
these dregs of time, to an obliterating of these impres- 
sions, which otherwise would have been strong and vi- 
vid' The principles of moral equity carry such an evi- 
dence in their nature, and are also accompanied with so 
much of binding force upon the conscience, that their 
obligation on rational creatures hath a most resplendent 
clearness, and fills the little world with such a strength, 
and efficacy of truth, as far surpasseth the plainest the- 
oretical principles. That one maxim, Matth. vii. 12. 
Luke vi. 3. Tlierefore all things whatsoever ye would that 
men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; that one max- 
im, I say, (to pass others) was matter of so much won- 
der to some of the most polite Heathens, that they knew 
not well how to express their sense of the truth and glo- 



vi 



PREFACE, 



ly of it ; they thought it worthy to be engraven with 
letters of gold, upon the frontispieces of their most 
magnificent structures ; an agreeable and speaking evi- 
dence of its having been imprinted in some measure up- 
on their hearts. Nevertheless, all these, though sweet, 
strong, and convincing notices of a Deity, do yet evan- 
ish as faint glimmerings, when compared to that stamp 
of divine authority, which our great and alone Law- 
giver has deeply imprinted upon the scriptures of truth, 
Psal. xix. 7. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the 
soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the 
simple, &c. I enter not upon this large theme, which 
great men have treated to excellent purpose ; I only 
represent very shortly, that the stupendous account we 
have in these scripture, of moral equity in its full com- 
pass, comprised even in ten words, that wonderful ac- 
count, I say, proclaimeth its Author with so much of 
convincing evidence, and such strains of glory, as I can- 
not possibly clothe with words. The greatest men 
among the Heathen nations, have given the highest ac- 
counts of their accomplishments by framing laws ; but 
besides the passing weakness of their performances, when 
viewed in a true light, the choicest of them all have a 
great deal of iniquity inlaid with them : But all here 
shineth with the glory of a Deity. Every duty is plain- 
ly contained within these small boundaries, and all con- 
cerns thereof in heart and w ay, are set down so punc- 
tually, and so fully cleared in the exposition which the 
Lawgiver himself has given of his own laws, that no- 
thing is wanting. Here also are all the mysteries of ini- 
quity in the heart so clearly and fully detected, these 
evils also pursued to their most latent sources, and to 
the grand spring of them all, viz. the corruption of our 
nature, and in so very few words, with so much of shin- 
ing evidence and power, that no judicious and sober 
person can deny that the finger of God is there, unless 
he ofier the most daring violence to his own conscience. 
And what shall I say of the glorious contrivanceof sal- 
vation, through the Lord Jesus our only Redeemer? 
Should I touch at the ground work thereof in the eter- 
nal counsel of the adorable Trinity, and the several dis- 



PREFACK 



vii 



plays of it, until at length the complete purchase was 
made in the fulness of time ; and if I should but glance 
at the several strokes of omnipotent power, and rich 
mercy through Christ, by which the purchased salva- 
tion is effectually applied to every elect person, I would 
enter upon a field from which I could not quickly or 
easily get off. All that I adventure to say is, that the 
discoveries of a Deity in each step thereof, are so relu- 
cent and full of glory, that the being of the material 
light under a meridian sun, without the interposition of 
a cloud, may as well be denied, as these great truths can 
be disowned. Beyond all manner of doubt, they con- 
tain matter of much higher, and more glorious evidence, 
upon the minds of all those whose eyes the god of this 
world hath not blinded, (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. John i. 5. Deut. 
xxix. 4.) Yet ah ! mid-day clearness is midnight dark- 
ness to those who have not eyes. But not to insist : 
If we add to all these, the full history of the heart of 
man, in the depths of Avickedriess, contained in that great 
abyss, together with the several eruptions thereof, both 
open and violent, as also subtile and covered, together 
with all the engines of temptations for setting it to work, 
and keeping it still busy ; if, I say, the perfect account 
of these things which is given in the word, be seriously 
pondered, who can escape the conviction, that He, and 
He only who formed the Spmt within him, could have 
given such a display. From all this, I would bewail, 
were it possible, with tears of blood, the blasphemous 
wickedness of those, who, from the grossest darkness 
and ignorance, oppose, malign, and deride such great 
and high things. But it is enough ; wisdow is justified of 
all her children, Matth. xi, 19. The worthy and now^ 
glorified author of this work, had a plentiful measure, 
beyond many, of the surest and sweetest knowledge of 
these matters : his soul, (may I so express it) w as cast 
into the blessed mould of gospel truth. Who is a teacher 
like unto God ! Sure an enlightening work, by his word 
and Spirit upon the soul, filleth it with evidence of a 
more excellent nature, and attended with a penetrancy 
quite of another kind, than any mathematical demon- 
stration can amount to* In this case, the soul (2 Qor. 



viii 



PREFACE. 



iii, 3.) is an epistle of Jesus Christ, wherein these great 
truths are written by himself, in characters which the 
united force and subtilties of hell shall be so far from 
deleting, that their strongest efforts shall render the im- 
pressions still deeper, and more vivid. No mathematic- 
al demonstration can vie with this : forasmuch as the au- 
thority of the God of truth, that conveys his own testi- 
mony into the heart with a strong hand, has a glory and 
evidence peculiar to itself. And though well known to 
those who enjoy it, yet of a beauty great and mysteri- 
ous, such as the tongues of men and angels could not 
suffice to describe. The empty cavils of that execrable 
herd of blasphemous Atheists, or Deists, as they would 
be called, amount to a very small and contemptible ac- 
count, seeing the most subtle of them, fall very far short 
of the objections which unclean spirits propose, and urge 
in away of temptation, against persons exercised to godli- 
ness, which yet the Father of lights dispelleth merciful- 
ly from time to time, and maketh these dark shades to 
evanish, as the Sun of righteousness ariseth upon the 
soul with a glory and evidence still upon the ascendant, 
Mai. iv, 2. Prov. iv, 18. Hos. vi, 3. Nevertheless, the 
learned and godly author hath encountered these silly 
creatures at their own weapons, both offensively and de- 
fensively, and to such excellent purpose, as needeth not 
my poor testimony. He hath searched into the very bot- 
tom of what they allege. With great and unwearied 
diligence did he read their writings carefully from the 
very first springs, and hath represented fairly their emp- 
ty cavils, in all the shades of strength they can be al- 
leged to have, ajid has refuted them plainly and copiously^ 
On which, and the like accounts, I hope the work will 
be, through the divine blessing, of great use in the 
churches of Christ. 

JAMES HOG. 



Vo the PuhliCe 



IT would be superfluous for the publisher to add any thing to 
the highly respectable recommendations which are subjoined, as a 
' reason for offering a new American edition of the following work 
to the public, or as an inducement to the pious and reflecting 
portion of community to patronize the undertaking. If, unhappily, 
the enemies of Christianity are, at this period, uncommonly active 
and zealous in propagating their pernicious doctrines, it becomes 
the pcQuliar duty of every one who feels the importance of religion, 
to encourage the circulation of a work so well calculated as this to 
check the progress of infidelity, and to promote the cause of truth 
and virtue. 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 



We consider Professor HALYBURTON^s celebrated work, on 
the Insufficiency of Natural Religion, and the Necessitt 
OF Revelation, as on the whole, the best manual on the subject 
of which it treats, now extant. The author, not less illustrious for 
his talents and learning, than for his piety, has not contented him- 
self, like most modern writers on the Deistical controversy, with 
merely standing on the defensive ; but has '^carried the war," as 
one of his eulogists expresses it, " into the camp of the adversa- 
ry proving, by unanswerable arguments," as another has pro* 
nounced, " the utter insufficiency of the Deist's religion for the sal- 
vation of them, and beating them fairly at their own weapons." 
We rejoice to bear that Mr. Southwick proposes to give a nel^r 

2' 



X 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 



American edition of this excellent work. Were its merits general- 
ly known, all recommendation would be unnecessary. 

SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. 
JOHN B. ROMEYN, D. D. 
PHILIP MILLEDOLER, 
GARDNER SPRING, 
HENRY P. STRONG, 
Pastors of the Presbyterian Church. 

JOHN SHUREMAN, 
CHRISTIAN BOURCK, 
S. N. ROWAN, 
JOHN BRODHEAD, 
Pastors of the Reformed Dutch Church. 

J. M. MASON, D. D. 
Provost of Columbia College and Pastor of the Associate 
Reformed Church. 

ALEX. McLEOD, D. D. 

Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 

THOMAS HAMILTON, 
Pastor of the Associate Church. 

JOHN McNIECE, 
Pastor of the Irish Presbyterian Church. 

WILLIAM NEILL, 

Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in the City of Albany. 

JOHN M. BRADFORD, 

Minister of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in the 
City of Albany. 

ELIPHALET NOTT, D. D. 

President of Union College, Schenectady. 

ALEXANDER MONTEITH, 
Pastor of the 1st Presbyterian Church in the city of Sche- 
nectady. 

New- York, May, 1812. 

Accustomed from my earliest years, to hear the name of Halt- 
burton mentioned with the highest respect, and his Examination 
OF THE Principles of the Deists of his own time, greatly ex- 
tolled, both by the pious and by the learned of his own Church, an^ 



RECOMMENDATIONS. xi 

after repeated and frequent perusals of this judicious and profound 
treatise, I cordially unite in the character and encemiums given 
above ; and with becoming deference, earnestly recommend the 
careful and patient study of it to all, but especially to the youth of 
our own country. 

JOHN McDonald, 

Pastor of the United Presbyterian Church in the City cf 
Albany, 



Albany, May 26, 1812. 



TO THE READER. 



JREADER, 

WHOEVER thou art, the question agitated in the 
ensuing discourse is that wherein thou hast a considera- 
ble concernment. If thou art a Christian, the ensuing 
discourse is designed to justify thy refusal of that reli-. 
gion which has now got a great vogue amongst those 
gentlemen, who set up for the only wits, and aim at 
monopolizing reason, as if they alone were the peoplcy and 
wisdom was to die with them. They cry up their religion 
as the only reasonable religion, and traduce all who will 
not join with them, as credulous and unreasonable men. 
Whereas, on the contrary, no man that uses his reason, 
can close with that which they would obtrude on us as 
i*ational religion : nor can any man, without being guilty 
of the fondest credulity, venture his salvation upon this 
modern Paganism, that struts abroad under the modish 
name ot Deism, which I hope the ensuing discourse will 
evince ; wherein it is made appear, that the light of na- 
ture is utterly insvfficient to answer the great ends of reli- 
gion^ and that consequently we had the justest reason in 
the world, if there were none, to wish for a revelation 
from God, as what is of absolute necessity to our happi-» 
ness ; and since there is one, with the greatest thankful- 
ness to embrace it, cleave to it an4 comply wdth it. 



XIV 



TO THE READER. 



Reader, if thou hast thy religion yet to choose, which 
I am afraid is too common a case in this unstable age, 
then it is high time thou wert bethinking thyself of reli- 
gion in earnest. 

To-morrow thou wilt live, thou still dost say ; 
To-day's too late, the wise liv'd yesterday. 

And if after too long a delay thou mean to avoid an 
unhappy choice, reason advises thee to consider well, 
that when the choice is made, care be taken to make it so^ 
as to prevent the necessity of either a second choice, or a 
too late repentance for choosing amiss. There is a set of 
men, who cry up at this day natural religion, and especi- 
ally commend it to such as have no religion. It is such 
as thou art that they desire to deal with, and among such 
it is that they are most successful. But if thou hast a 
mind not to be deceived in a matter of such moment, it 
imports thee not a little to consider what may be said 
a2:ainst that, which it is likely may be offered thee, as ^ 
fine, modish, reasonable religion, meet for a gentleman, 
a man of wit and reason. I have here offered to prove 
this all to be said without, yea against reason and exj)en^ 
ence. Well, first hear and then judge, and after that 
choose or refuse as thou seest cause. ^ _ 

As for the management of this useful inquu-y, it is 
wholly suited to that which at first was only designed, 
viz. the satisfaction of the writer's own mind about the 
q uestion that is here proposed. I entered not upon this 
inquiry with a view to oppose any man, or triumph over 
adversaries, and so did industriously wave those catches, 
subtleties, and other nicities, used frequently by writers 
of controversy. My only design was to find the truth, 
and therefore I chose clearly to state the questiozi, which 
I found the Deists always avoided, and plainly propose 
my reasons for that side of it I took, after tnal, to be the 
truth. As to the opposite opinion, I made it my busi-. 
ness to make a dilio;ent inquiry into the strongest argu- 
ments advanced for it, candidly to propose themm their 
utmost force, and closely to answer tliem; avoiding, a§ 
much as might be, such reproaches as are unworthy ot a 



TO THE READER. 



XV 



Christian, or an inquirer after truths though I met with 
frequent provocation, and found sometimes how true 
that is, Difficile est non scrihere satyram contra satyramJ^ 
It was not amusement I aimed at, or to please my own 
fancy, or tickle the reader's ears with a gingle of words, 
or diveil and bias the judgment by a flood of rhetoric. 
I never designed to set up for an orator. My business 
lies quite another way, it is what I lay no claim to, and 
what I think is to be avoided in discourses of this kind. 
All I aimed at as to language, was to clothe my thoughts 
in plain and intelligible expressions. The reader is to 
expect no more, and if he miss this I hope it will be but 
rarely. 

It is not to be expected, that a discourse which was 
be^un in an inverted order, the middle part being fiist 
writ ; and that was composed in the intervals of business 
of a very diffierent nature, at spare hours, by one of no 
great experience, and an utter stranger to writings of 
this sort, shall be free of blemishes that may offend 
nicer palates. Some few repetitions could not, at least 
without more pains in transcribing than I had either lei- 
sure or inclination for, well be avoided. Nor could a 
discourse so often interrupted by other business, and 
upon so very diflerent subjects, be carried on with that 
equality of style that were to be wished, especially by 
one who was never over much an affecter of elegancy 
of language. In a wordj the work is long, much longer 
than I designed ; and yet without wronging the sub- 
ject, at least as I am otherwise situated and engaged, I 
could not easily shorten it. If he pleases to inspect the 
book, he may possibly find, that I had reason for insist- 
ing at the length I have done. However, every one has 
not the art of him, who could enclose Homer's Iliads in 
a nut's shell. 

I I am sensible, that what I have discoursed in the first 
Ichapter of the ensuing treatise, concerning the Occasions 
\ f Deism, will grate hard upon a set of men, who have for 
jnany years bygone carried all before them, and so have 
-aken it ill to have any censures bestowed on them, though 

• ** It is difficult not to write a satire against satire." 



xvi 



TO THE READER. 



they did severely animadvert upon the real or supposed 
faults of others. As to this I have not much to say by 
way of apology. That Deism has sprung up and grows 
apace amongst us, is on all hands confessed. Others have 
offered ihek conjectures concerning the occasions of its 
increase. Why I might not offer my opinion also, I know 
no reason. The principal subject of the ensuing treatise 
suffers not, though I should herein be mistaken. In pro- 
posing my conjecture I did not pursue the interest of 
any party ; but have freely blamed all parties. If the 
sticklers for the Arminian or Socinian divinity are touch- 
ed, it was because I thought they were to be blamed, 
and therefore I have withstood them to their face. Ag 
to the tendency of their principles I have been sparing, 
because that debate has been sufficiently agitated in the 
Low Countries betwixt the contending parties. The 
reader who would be satisfied as to this, may peruse 
those who have directly managed this charge, and the 
answers that have been made, and judge upon the whole 
matter as he finds cause.^ But Avhatever may be as to 
this, the manner of their management may perhaps be 
found less capable of a colourable defence. And it is 
upon this that I have principally insisted. To oppose, 
especially from the pulpit, with contempt, buflbonry, 
banter and satire, principles, that sober persons of the 
same persuasion do own to have at least a very plausi- 
ble like foundation in the word of God, and which have 
been, for near sixty or seventy years after the reformat 
tion, the constant doctrine of the fathers, and sons of the 
church of England, and have by them been inserted in- 
to lier articles, and so become a part of her doctrine,f 
is a practice that I do not well understand how to ex^ 
cu?e or free from the imputation of profanity, and 
wiiich hath too manifest a tendency to Atheism, to ad- f 
}ijitof any tolerable defence. The scriptures, and truths, 
that have any countenance in them, or opinions which ^ 
they seem really to persons otherwise sober, pious and 
judicious, not only to teach, but to inculcate as of the 



* See Arcana Anr/mlanismi, by Vldelius, and Videlius Ropsodus, with Vi- , 
delius's Rejoinders, &c. J|J 
t See Bishop of Sarum on the Articles, Preface, page 7, 8. fli 



TO THE READER. 



xvii 



highest importance, are not a meet subject for raillery ; 
nor is the pulpit a meet place for it. Tliis is that for 
which principally I have blamed them, and this I cannot 
retract. If they take this ill, I ask them. Have not others 
as much reason to take it ill, that the doctrines of the 
church of England taught in her articles and homilies, 
and professed by her learned bishops, who composed 
them, and by her sons for so long a tract of time, as 
consonant to, founded in, and grounded on the word of 
God, should be so petulantly traduced by wit, raillery, 
and declamatory invectives from the press and pulpit; and 
that too by those who have subscribed to these articles 
and homilies ? This management has been complained 
of by sober persons of all parties, churchmen and dis- 
senters, contra-remonstrants and remonstrants too, as I 
could make appear, if there were occasion for it : And 
why I might not also complain, I want yet to be inform- 
ed. None is charged save the guilty. Others who are 
innocent have no reason to be angry. And perhaps, they 
who will be offended at this, would scarce have been 
pleased if I had let it alone. 

In the tenth chapter of this treatise, I have opposed 
the opinion that asserts the Heathen world to be under 
a government of grace. I know it is maintained by ma- 
ny learned men both at home and abroad, from whose 
memory, if dead, or just respect, if alive, I designed not 
to detract. Nor did I design to list them with the Deists, 
whom I know to have been solidly opposed by several 
that were of this opinion. But yet I do think the opinion 
itself destitute of any solid foundation, with all deference 
to them, who think otherwise, either in scripture, reason 
or experience. And I am further of the mind, that the 
learned abettors of it, had never embraced an assertion, 
that exposes them to so many perplexing difficulties, and 
puts them upon a necessity of using so many, I had al- 
most said, unintelligible distinctions for its support, if 
they had not been driven to it by some peculiar hypo- 
' thesis in divinity which they have seen meet to embrace. 
If any intend to prove Avhat I have denied, I wish it may 
be done by proper arguments, directly proving it, and 
not by advancing an hypothesis that remotely infers it, 

3 



xviii 



TO THE READER. 



and which, in itself, or, at least as proposed by those 
whom I have met with, is so darkened by a huge mul- 
titude of subtile, mvsterious and uncouth distinctions, 
that I can scarce ever project so much time as to under- 
stand them. However this much I must say, that so 
cross does this opinion seem to scripture, reason and ex- 
perience, that it Avill go a very great way to w eaken the 
credit of any hypothesis on which it inevitably follows. 
However, I hope this may be said, and different opin- 
ions about this point without any breach of charity may 
be retained. Diiersum sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi 
licuit semper amicitia,^ I know the abettors of this opin- 
ion are hearty friends in the main to the cause I here 
maintain. 

The scheme I have in the close of that chapter offer- 
ed by way of digression, of God's government of the 
Heathen world, is not designed as a full account of that 
matter, which as to many of its concernments, is of those 
things that are not revealed, and so belong not us ; much 
less is it designed to be the ground of a peremptory 
judgment as to the eternal state of them, wlio are with- 
out the church : But only to shew, that any thing Ave 
certainly know as to God's dealings with them, in the 
common course of his providence, may, upon other sup- 
positions and principles, beside that rejected, be account- 
ed for. The judicious and sober reader may judge of 
it as he sees cause. I hope I have, in a matter of such 
difficulty, avoided any unbecoming curiosity, or affect- 
ing to be wise above what is written. 

If any blame me for the multitude of quotations, I an- 
swer, the subject I undertook rendered this unavoida- 
ble. I have used the utmost candor in them. Some- 
times out of a regard to brevity I have avoided the trans- 
lation of testimonies quoted from authors who writ in a 
diiferent language. The learned will not complain of 
this : And if any person of tolerable judgment, who is 
not learned, will be at pain« to peruse the ensuing dis- 
course, he will find as much said, without regarding 



* " It was always allowed, that two persons might think differently of the 
^ame thing-s, without breach of friendship." 



TO THE READER. 



those quotations, as may satisfy his mind upon this sub- 
ject. 

As to what I have, in the ensuing papers ascribed, to 
Mr. Gildon publisher of the Oracles of Reason, I liad 
written it before I understood his recovery from Deism. 
But yet I thought it not meet to alter it, because there 
are, no doubt, many others who entertain the same no- 
tions he then did maintain, and my opposition is to the 
principles and not the persons. As for his recovery, 1 
congratulate it, and wish it may be such as may secure 
him from after-reckoning for the hurt he has done. 

If any Deists shall see meet to undertake this debate, 
I decline it not. If they treat my book as they have 
done those of others, every way my superiors, and as 
rats are wont to do — gnaw only the outside, advert to in- 
cident things that are not to the purpose, and single out 
rather what seems exceptionable than what is of moment, 
following him who did so, 

— &, quse 

Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit,* 

I have somewhat else to do, than to take any notice of 
such impertinency. If any shall offer a solid and ra- 
tional confutation, Avhich yet I am not much afraid of, 
and convince me, not by jest, buffoonry and raillery, 
but by solid arguments, of my being in a mistake, 

Cuncta recantabo maledicta, pviora rependam 
Laudibus, & vestriim nomen in astra feram-f 



* And leaves out whatever he despairs of being able to shine in if they vrevt 
touched on." 

f " I will recant all my reproaches, I will make amends for my former 
slanders by praises, and will exalt your name tq the stars." 



INDEX 



FAG£. 

PREFACE, .... . . . • 3 

Recommendations of the work, ..... 9 

Author's address to the reader, . . • . .13 

Introduction, • . . 25 

[Wherein it is proved a matter of the highest import and 
necessity to make a right choice of religion ; and wherein 
it is further evinced, that no man, without the most mani- 
fest violence to reason, can turn Heathen, Mahometan, or 
acquiesce in Atheism or Scepticism, and that consequently 
every man must acquiesce in the Scriptures, or turn De- 
ist. Deism undertaken to be demonstrated false and 
ruining.-— The author's inducements to this undertaking,] 

CHAP. I. 

Giving a short account of the rise, occasions, and progress 
of Deism, especially in England ; — the opinions of the De- 
ists ; — ^the different sorts of Deists, mortal and immortal, 41 

CHAP. II. 

Mortal Deists who, and what judgment to be made of them 
and their sentiments, 54 

CHAP. III. 

Wherein the controversy betwixt us and the Immortal De^ 
ists is stated and cleared, 5'7 

CHAP. IV. 

Wherein the insuflSciency of natural religion is proved from 
the insufficiency of its discoveries of a Deity, * , 64 



INDEX. 



CHAP. V. ^ 

Proving the insufficiency of natural religion from its defec- 
tiveness as to the worship of God, . . . . 79 

CHAP. VI. ^ 

Proving the insufficiency of natural religion from its defec- 
tiveness as to the discovery wherein man's happiness lies, 85 

CHAP. VII. 

Nature's light affi)rds not a sufficient rule of duty. — Its insuffi- 
ciency hence inferred, . . . . . . 98 

CHAP. VIII. 

Proving the insufficiency of natural religion from its defects 
as to sufficient motives for enforcing obedience, lOS 

CHAP. IX. 

Shewing the importance of knowing the origin of sin to the 
worid, and the defectiveness of nature's light as to this, . 115 

CHAP. X. 

Proving nature's light unable to discover the means of obtain* -I 
ing pardon of sin, or to shew that it is attainable, . . 128 

Sect. L The importance of this difficulty stated^ 128 

Sect. II. Shewing the darkness of nature's light as to 
pardon, ........ 136 

Sect. III. Wherein it is inquired whether repentance 
is sufficient to attone for sin? How far nature's light 
enables to it ? What assurance nature's light gives of 
pardon upon repentence ? . » - . 143 

Objections considered, . . . ^ . 169 

Digression concerning God's government of the Hea- 
then world, shewing that there is nothing in it whence 
any design of God to pardon them may be certainly 
iflferred, 19i> 



INDEX. 



CHAP. XL 



PAGE. 



Proving the insufficiency of natural religion to eradicate our 
inclinations to sin, or subdue its power, . . . 204 

CHAP. xn. 

Wherein the proof of the insufficiency of natural religion is 
concluded from a general view of the experience of the 
world, 21S 

CHAP. xin. 

Wherein we n^ake a transition to the Deists' pleas for their 
opinion, and take particular notice of the Articles to which 
they reduce their Catholic religion ; give some account 
of Baron Herbert, the first inventer of this Catholic re- 
ligion, his books, and particularly of that which is inscrib- 
ed De Religione Gentilium^ as to the matter and scope 
of it, and the importance of what is therein attempted to 
the Deiste' cause, 219 

CHAP. XIV. 

Wherein it is inquired. Whether Herbert has proved that his 
Five Articles did universally obtain, . - . 230 

CHAP. XV. 

Wherein it is made appear that Herbert's Five Articles did 
not universally obtain, . . . , . . 253 

CHAP. XVI. 

Wherein some general considerations are laid down for prov- 
ing that many of the best things, which are to be met with 
in the Heathens, were not the discoveries of nature's light, 
but came from tradition, 270 

C H A P. XVII. ^ 



Wherein we consider what Herbert's opinion was as to the 
sufficiency of his Articles, and offer some reflections, show- 
ing how foolish, absurd and ridiculous the Deists' pre- 
tences to their sufficiency are, . . * 276 



CHAP. XVIII. 

Containing an answer to some of the Deists' principal argu- 
ments for the sufficiency of natural religion, , , 286 



xxiv INDEX. 

CHAP. XIX. 

Wherein Herbert's reasons for publishing his books in de- 
fence of Deism are examined and found weak, . 299 

CHAP. XX. 

Wherein the Queries oflfered by Herbert and Blount, for 
proving the sufficiency of their Five Articles are examined, 308 



ESSAY ON FAITH. 

CHAP. I. 

Containing some general remarks concerning knowledge, 
faith, and particularly divine faith and that both as to 
the faculty and actings thereof, .... 335 

CHAP. H. 

Wherein the nature of that faith, which in duty we are 
obliged to give to the word of God, our obligation to, 
and our ability for answering our duty, are inquired into, 339 

CHAP. in. 

The ground, or the formal reason, whereon fgdth assents 
to the scriptures is inquired after ; the Rationalist's 
opinon about it, and particularly as stated by Mr. Locke 
in his book on Human Understanding, is proposed and 
ronsidered, . • • • - • • • 34-5 



INTRODUCTION, 



In this sceptical age, whicli questions almost every thing, it 
still owned as certain, that all men must die. If there were any 
place for disputing this, there are not a few, who would spare no 
pains to bring themselves into the disbelief of a truth, that gives 
them so much disturbance, in the courses they love and seem re- 
solved to follow : But the case is so clear, and the evidence of this 
principle so pregnant, which is every day confirmed by new expe- 
riments, that the most resolved infidel is forced, when it comes in 
his way, though unwilling, to give his assent, and moan out an 
Amen. The grave is the house appointed for all the living. Some 
arrive sooner, some later ; but all come there at length. The ob- 
scurity of the meanest cannot hide him, nor the power of the great- 
est screen him from the impartial hand of death, the executioner 
of fate, if I may be allowed the use of a word so much abused. As 
its coming is placed beyond doubt, so its aspect is hideous beyond 
the reach of thought, the force of expression, or the utmost efforts 
of the finest pencil in the most artful hand. It, in a moment, dash- 
es down a fabric, which has more of curious contrivance than all 
the celebrated pieces put together, which the most refined human 
wits have invented, even when carried to the greatest height, which 
the improvements of so many subsequent generations, after the ut- 
most application and diligence, could bring them to. It puts a 
stop to many thousand motions, which, though strangely diversified, 
did all concur, with wonderful exactness, to maintain, and carry on 
the design and intendment of the glorious and divine Artificer. 
How this divine and wonderful machine was first erected, set a go- 
ing, and has, for so long a track of time, regularly performed all its 
motions, could never yet be understood by the most elevated un- 
derstandings. Canst thou tell how the bones grow in the womb of her 
that is with child^ is a challenge to all the sons of science, to unfold 
the mystery ? Many have accepted it, but all have been foiled. 
Something they could say ; but, in spite of it all, the thing that they 

4 



26 



INTRODUCTION. 



found a niysterj, they left so still. How can one then look on the 
dissolution of so admirable a contrivance, a machine so curious, and 
so far surpassing human art, without the deepest and most sensible 
regret. It untwists that mysteriou^s tie, whereby soul and body 
were so fast linked together ; breaks up that intimate and close 
correspondence, that entire sympathy which was founded thereon ; 
dislodges an old inhabitant ; and while it lingers, being unwilling to 
remove, death pulls that curious fabric, wherein it dwelt, down 
about its ears, and so forces it thence, to take up its lodgings, it can 
scarce tell where. And upon its removal, that curious fabric, that 
a little before was full of life, activity, vigour, order, warmth, and 
every thing else that is pleasant, is now left a dead, inactive, cold 
lump, a disordered mass of loathsome matter, full of stench and 
corruption. Now the body is a spectacle so hideous, that they who 
loved, and who embraced it before, cannot abide the sight or smell 
of it ; but shut it up in a coffin, and not content with that, away 
they carry it and lodge it amongst worms, and the vilest insects in 
the bowels of the earth, to be consumed, devoured, torn and rent 
by the most abominable vermin that lodge in the grave. 

Quantum mutatus ah illo,^ 

We have all heard of the afflctions of Job. Two or three mes- 
sengers arrive, one after the other, and still the last is worst. Eve- 
ry one tells his story. The first is sad ; but those that follow are still 
more melancholy. The disasters are so terrible, that they fill the 
t^orld with just astonishment. And yet after all, what is this to death, 
which alone is able to furnish subject, more than enough, for some 
thousands of such melancholy messages ! One might bring the dying 
man the melancholy tidings, that he is divested of all his beneficial, 
pleasant, and honorable employments : While he is yet speaking, 
another might be ready to bid him denude himself of all his pos- 
sessions : A third, to continue the tragedy, might assure him that 
there is a commission issued out to an impartial hand, to tear him 
from the embraces of his dear relations, without regarding the hide- 
ous outcries of a loving wife, the meltings of tender infants, the in- 
tercessions of dear friends : While others continuing still the mourn- 
ful scene, might assure him that he was no more to relish the fra- 
grancy of the spring, or taste the delights of the sons of men, or 
see the pleasant light of the sun, or hear the charming airs of mu- 
sic, or the yet more useful converse of friends. And to make the 
matter sadder still, if It can well be so, the story might be shut up 
with a rueful account of the parting of soul and body, with all the 
horrible disasters that follow upon this parting. 



* " How ^eatly changed froca what it once was.'* 



INTRODUCTION. 



27 



Thus the case evidently stands. Not a tittle of all this admits of 
debate. To every man it may be said, De te fabiila narrahir.^ 
What a wonder is it, that so grave and important a subject is so 
little in the thoughts of men ? What apology can be made for the 
folly of mankind, who are at so much pains to shelter themselves 
against lesser inconveniences, quite overlooking this, which is of in- 
finitely greater consequence ? 

Here is the light-side of death, which every body may see. — 
What a rueful and astonishing prospect doth it give us? Where shall 
we find comfort against that dismal day, whereon all this shall be 
verified in us ? He is something worse than a fool or madman, that 
will not look to this. And he is yet more mad that thinks, that ra- 
tional comfort in such a case can be maintained upon dark, slender 
and conjectural grounds. 

It is certain, that which must support, must be something on the 
other side of time. The one side of death affords nothing but mat- 
ter of terror ; if we are not enabled to look forward, and get such 
a sight of the other as may balance it, we may reasonably say, that 
it had been better for us never to have been born. 

Undoubtedly, therefore, no question is so useful, so necessary, 
so noble, and truly worthy the mind of man as this : What shall 
become of me after death ? What have I to look for on the other 
side of that awful change ? 

Those arts and sciences which exercise the industry and con- 
sideration of the greater part of the thinking world, are calculated 
for time, and aim at the pleasure or advantage of a present life. It 
is religion alone that directly concerns itself in the important ques- 
tion last mentioned, and pretends to offer comforts against the 
melancholy aspect of death, by securing us in an up-making for 
our losses on the other side of time. Men, who are not blind to their 
own interest, had need therefore to take care of the choice of their 
religion. If they neglect it altogether, as many now do, they for- 
feit all prospect of relief. If they chuse a wrong one, that is not 
able to reach the end, they are no less unhappy. The world may 
call them wits, or what else they please, who either wholly neglect 
and laugh over all inquiries after religion, or who superficially look 
into matters of this nature, and pass a hasty judgment : But sober 
reason will look on them as somewhat below the condition of the 
beasts that perish. 

It is somewhat to be regretted, that the bulk of mankind found 
their principles, as well as practice and hopes, on no better bottom 
than education, which gives but too just occasion for the smart re- 
flection of the witty, though profane poet : 

By education most have been misled ; 

So they believe, because they were so bred. 



" It is of you that the story is told." 



58 



INTRODUCTION. 



The priest continues what the nurse began : 
And thus the child imposes on the maa.* 

Most part seek no better reason for their belief and practice than 
custom and education. Whatever these offer in principle, they 
greedily swallow down, and venture all on so weak a bottom. And 
this sure is one of the great reasons why so many miscarry in this im- 
portant matter. It is true, in this inquiring age, many, especially of the 
better quality, scorn this way. But it is to be feared that the greater 
part of them, flying to one extreme, as is common in such cases, have 
lighted on another and a worse one, if not to themselves, yet certainly 
of more pernicious consequence to the public. They set up for wits 
and men of sense. They pretend to have found out great mistakes 
in the principles of their education, the religion of their country ; 
and thence, without more ado, reject it in bulk, and turn sceptics 
in religion. And yet after all this noise, most of them neither un- 
derstand the religion they reject, nor know they what to substitute 
in its room, which is certainly an error of the worst consequence 
imaginable to the public ; since men once arrived at this pass, can 
never be depended on. Men may talk what they please. A man 
of no religion is a man not to be bound, and therefore is absolutely 
unmeet for any share in society, which cannot subsist, if the sa- 
cred ties of religion hold it not together. 

But in whatever course such persons, on the one hand or other, 
steer, the more considerate and better part of mankind, in matters 
of so high importance, will, with the nicest care, try all, that they 
may hold fast what is good. If a man once understands the im- 
portance of the case, he will find reason to look some deeper, and 
think more seriously of this matter, than either the unthinking 
generality^ who receive all in bulk, without trial, as it is given them, 
or, the forward would-be-wits, that oftentimes are guilty of as great, 
and much more pernicious credulity in rejecting ail, as the other in 
receiving all. 

But whereas there are so many different religions in the world, 
and all of them pretend to conduct us in this important inquiry ; 
which of them shall we chuse ? The Deists, to drive us into their 
religion, which consists only of five articles, agreed to, as they pre- 
tend, by all the world, would persuade us, that a choice is im- 
possible to l>e made of any particular religion, till we have gone 
through, with such a particular examination of every pretender, and 
all things that can be said for or against it, as no man is able to make. 
Blount tells us, as Herbert before had done, That unless a man 
" read all authors, speak with all learned men, and know all languages, 

it is impossible to come to a clear solution of all doubts. "| And 



* Dryd. mnd and Panther. 

Blount's Rt^l-iio J,aici, pag*. 91. Herbert's Reh'rno Laid, pa^. 12. 



INTRODUCTION. 



29 



iin effect, it is pretended impossible to be satisfied about the truth 
of any particular religion. If this reasoning did hold, I should not 
doubt to make it appear, that no truth whatever is to be received ; 
and in particular, that their so much boasted catholic religion, 
cannot rationally be entertained by any man. If we can be satisfied 
upon rational grounds about no truth, till we have heard and con- 
sidered all, that not only has been said, but may be alleged against 
it ; what truth can we believe ? Here it is easy to observe that some 
cannot do ought, unless they overdo. The intendment of such rea- 
soning is obvious : Some men would cast us loose as to all religion, 
that we may be brought under a necessity to take up with any fan- 
cy they shall be pleased to offer us ; a man that is sinking will take 
hold of the most slender twig. The Papists have vigorously pursued 
this course in opposition to the Protestants, to drive them into the 
arms of their infallible guide. And indeed the learned Herbert's 
reasonings on this point, after whom the modern Deists do but 
copy, seem to be borrowed from the Romanists, and are urged 
in a design not unfavorable to the church of Rome, of which per- 
haps more afterwards. 

But to wave this thin sophistry ; any one that will, with a suita- 
ble application, engage in the consideration of what religion he is to 
chuse, will quickly find himself eased of this unmanageable task, 
which the Deists would set him. His inquiry will soon be brought 
to a narrow compass, and the pretenders, that will require any nice 
consideration, will be found very few. 

For a very cursory consideration of religion in the heathen 
rvorld, will give any considerate mind ground enough to rest fully 
assured, that the desired satisfaction as to future happiness, and the 
means of attaining it, are not thence to be expected. Here he will 
not find what may have the least appearance of satisfying him. The 
wisest of the heathens scarce ever pretended to satisfy themselves, 
much less others, upon these heads. All things here are dark, vain, 
incoherent, inconsistent, wild, and plainly ridiculous for most part ; 
as will further appear in our progress. Their religions were, general- 
ly speaking, calculated for other purposes, and looked not so far as 
eternity. 

Nor will it be more difficult to get over any stop that the reli- 
gion of Mahomet may lay in our inquirer^ way. Let a man seri- 
ously peruse the Alcoran, and if he has his senses about him, he 
cannot but there see the most pregnant evidences of the grossest, 
most scandalous and impudent imposture, that ever was obtruded 
on the world. Here he must expect no other evidence for what 
he has to believe, but the bare assertion of one, who was scandal- 
ously impious to that de2;ree, that his own followers know not how 
to apologize for him. If you inquire for any other evidence, you 



30 



INTRODUCTION, 



are doomed by the Alcoran to everlasting ruin, and his slaves are 
ordered to destroy you.^ He forbids any inquiry into his religion, 
or the grounds of it, and therefore you must either admit in bulk 
the entire bundle of fopperies, inconsistencies, and shocking ab- 
surdities, that are cast together in the Alcoran, without any trial, 
or reject it : And in this case, no wise man will find it hard to make 
a choice. 

After one has proceeded thus far, he may easily see, that he is 
now inevitably cast upon one of the four conclusions: Either 1st, 
He must conclude it certain that all religion is vain, that there 
is nothing to be expected after this life, and so commence Atheist* 
Or 2dly, He must conclude, that certainty is not attainable in 
these things, and so turn Sceptic. Or 3dly, He must pretend, 
that every one's reason unassisted is able to conduct him in mat- 
ters of religion, ascertain him of future happiness, and direct as 
to the means of attaining it ; and so set up for natural religion and 
turn Deist. Or 4thly, He must acquiesce in the revealed religion 
contained in the scriptures, and so turn Christian, or at least Jew. 

As to the first of these courses, no man will go into it, till he has 
abandoned reason. An atheist is a monster in nature. That there 
is nothing to be expected after this life, and that man's soul dies 
with his body, is a desperate conclusion, which ruins the foundation 
of all human happiness ; even in the judgment of the Deists them- 
selves.f There are two material exceptions which are sufficient 
to deter any thinking man from closing with it. 

The one is, the kideousness of its aspect. Annihilation is so 
horrible to human nature, and has so frightful a visage to men who 
have a desire of perpetuity inlaid in their very frame, that none 
can look at it seriously without the utmost dread. It is true, guil- 
ty Atheists would fain take sanctuary here ; yet were they brought 
to think seriously of the case, they would not find that relief in it 
which they promise. I have been credibly informed that a gentle- 
man of no contemptible parts, who had lived as if, indeed, he were 
to fear or hope nothing after time, being in prison, and fearing death, 
(though he escaped it and yet lives) fell a thinking seriously, when 
alone, of annihilation : And the fears of it made so deep and horri- 
ble impressions on his mind, that he professed to a gentleman, who 
made him a visit in prison, and found him in a grievous damp, that 
the thoughts of annihilation were so dreadful to him, that he had ra- 
ther think of suffering a thousand years in hell. Guilty sinners, to 
ease their consciences, and screen them from the disquieting appre- 
hensions of an after- reckoning, retreat to this, as a refuge ; but 
they think no more about it, save only this and that in a cursor}-^ 



* Alcoran, chap, 4. 

f Letter to a Deist, page 1^5. 



INTRODUCTION. 



31 



waj, that it will free them from the punishment they dread and de- 
serve. But if they would sedately view it, and take under their 
consideration all the horror of the case, their natures would recoil 
and shrink : It would create uneasiness instead of quiet, and increase 
the strait rather than relieve them from it. 

Besides, which is the other exception against it, were there never 
so much comfort in it, as there is none, yet it is impossible to prove 
that there is nothing after this life. There is nothing that is tolera- 
ble can be said for it. None shall ever evince the certainty of the 
soul's dying with the body, till he has overthrown the being of a 
God, which can never be done so long as there is any thing certain 
among men. Further, as there is little or nothing to be said for it, 
so there is much to be said against it. Reason affords violent pre- 
sumptions, at least, for a future state. And all the arguments which 
conclude for the truth of Christianity, join their united force to sup- 
port the certainty of a state after this life. Till these are removed 
out of the way, there is no access for any to enjoy the imaginary 
comfort of this supposition. But who will undertake solidly to over- 
turn so many arguments, which have stood the test of ages ? They 
who are likely to be most forward, and favor this cause most, dare 
scarce allow these reasonings a fair hearing, which plead for a fu- 
ture state, for fear of rivetting the impression of the truth deeper 
on their minds, which they desire to shake themselves loose of. And 
how then will they overthrow them ? In fine, he is a madman, who will 
admit a conclusion, whereof he can never be certain, and wherein, 
were it sure, he can have no satisfaction. The first forbids the judg- 
mentf the last dissuades the will and affections from resting in it. 

As to the second conclusion above mentioned, that sets up for 
scepticism in matters of religion, and bids us live at peradventures 
as to what is to be feared or hoped after time : it is a course that 
nothing can justify save absolute necessity. It lies open to the 
worst of inconveniences. Nothing can be imagined more melan- 
choly than its consequences, and the pretences for it are vain and 
frivolous. 

If it be really thus, that man can arrive at no certainty in matters 
of religion, and about his state after time, how deplorable is man's 
condition ? His case is comfortless beyond what can be well con- 
ceived. Nor can his enjoyments afford him any solid satisfaction, 
while ghastly death looks him in the face, and the sword hangs over 
his head, suspended by a hair. Will not the prospect of his rueful 
change (of whose dismal attendants we have given some account) em- 
bitter his sweetest enjoyments ? And will not the horror of the case 
be much increased by resolving upon a perplexing uncertainty as 
to what may come hereafter? In how dismal a plight is the poor man, 
who on the one hand is certain of the speedy arrival of death with 
all his frightful attendants ; and on the other, is told that he must 



32 



INTRODUCTION. 



rove in uncertainty, till the event clear him, whether he shall be 
entirely annihilated, and so plunge into that horrible gulf where 
Atheists seek a sanctuary ! or if he shall not be hurried headlong into 
these endless torments, which the consciences of guilty sinners, 
when awakened, presage ; or, if he shall soar aloft into regions of 
endless bliss, which sinful mortals have but little reason to expect ; 
or, finally, whether he is not to launch out into some state reduci- 
ble to none of these. If here it behoves us to fix, one would not 
know how to evite two conclusions that are horrible to think of r 
" That our reason, whereby we are capable of foreseeing, and are 
« affected with things at a distance, is a heavy curse ; and that the 
" profligate Atheist, who endeavors to mend this fault, in his consti- 
" tution, by a continual debauch, that never allows him to think 
" any more of what is certainly to come, than if he were a brute in- 
" capable of forethought, is the wisest man." 

Beside, as was above insinuated, the pretences for this course are 
Tain. It is true, most of those who set up for wits in this unhappy 
age, are mere sceptics in religion, who admit nothing as certain, 
but boldly question every thing, and live at peradventures. Yet 
we are not obliged to think that this scepticism is the result of se- 
rious inquiry, and the want of certainty thereon ; but those gentle- 
men's way of living is inconsistent with serious religion ; they are 
therefore desirous to have such a set of principles as if they favor 
them not in the practices they have a mind to follow, yet shall not in- 
commode them sorely. This principle gives not absolute security of 
impunity ; but it seems, and hut seems, to justify them in their present 
neglect of religion, and gives them a may be for an escape from 
feared and deserved punishments ; and favors that laziness that can- 
not search for truth, where it lies not open to the eye, even of 
those who care not to see it. Their practice and course of life 
shew them so impatient of restraints, that they love liberty, or ra- 
ther licentiousness ; and are not willing to come under any bonds. 
They greedily grasp at any difficulty that seems to make 
ever so little against religion ; — an evidence that they bear it no 
real good will. They neither converse much with books, nor men, 
that might afford them satisfaction, in reference to their real scruples, 
which is proof enough that they design not to be satisfied. They are 
light and jocular in their converse about the most serious matters ; 
an evidence that their desire is not to be informed. It is a good 
observation of the wise man, [Prov. xlv, 6.] A scorner seeketh wis- 
dom and findeth it not, but knowledge is easy to him that under- 
standeth. This is the real mystery of the matter with those gentle- 
men, whatever they may pretend. 

I know they want not pretences, taking enough with the unthink- 
ing, whereby they would justify themselves in their infidelity. The 
principal one is, that they find it easy to load religion with abund- 



INTRODUCTION. 



33 



ance of diflSculties, not easily, if at all, capable of solution. But af- 
ter all, these gentlemen use those objections as the sceplics did of old, 
not so much to maintain any settled principle, no not their beloved 
one, whereof now we speak; as to create them work, and make 
sport with those who would seriously confute them, and to ward off 
blows from themselves, who have neither principles nor practice ca- 
pable of a rational defence. 

It is Kke indeed, that sometimes they may meet with such, who 
although they own religion, are yet incapable of defending it against 
such objections. But this is no wonder, since there are weak men 
of all persuasions. And their weakness is not, or ought, not to be any 
real prejudice to the truth they maintain. Besides, every one may 
know that ignorance of any subject is fertile of doubts, and will start 
abundance of difficulties ; whereas it requires a more full and exact 
acquaintance with the nature of things to solve them ; and this falls 
not to every one's share. 

Further, if this be allowed a reasonable exception against reli- 
gion, that it is liable to exceptions not easy to be solved, it will hold 
good as well against all other sorts of knowledge, as against religion ; 
yea, and I may add, it concludes much stronger ; for the farther 
any subject is above our reach, the less reason we have to expect, 
that we shall be capable of solving every difficulty that may be 
started against it. There is no part of our knowledge, that is not in- 
cumbered with difficulties, as hard to be satisfy i ugly solved, as those 
commonly urged against religion. If this be a sufficient reason to 
question religion, that there are arguments which may be urged 
against it, not capable of a clear, or, at least, an easy solution ; I doubt 
not, upon the same ground, to bring the gentlemen who maintain 
this, if they will follow out their principle, to reject the most evi- 
dent truths, that we receive upon the credit of moral, metaphysical, 
and mathematical demonstiations ; yea, or even upon the testimony 
of our senses. For I know few of these truths that we receive up- 
on any of those grounds, against which a person of a very ordinary 
genius may not start difficulties, which perhaps no man alive can 
give a fair account of; and yet no man is so foolish as to call in 
question those truths, because he cannot solve the difficulties which 
every idle head may start upon those subjects. I may give innu- 
merable instances of the difficulties wherewith other parts of hu- 
man knowledge are embarrassed : I shall only hint at a few. 

That matter is divisible into, or at least consists of indivisible 
particles, is with some a truth next to self-evident. That the quite 
contrary is true, and matter is divisible in infinitum, appears no 
less certain to many others.^ But if either of them should pretend 



* Locke on ITmnan Under standin^y edit. 5, page 207- — " I would fain have it 
instanced hi ©ur notion nf spirit of any thing- more perplexed, or nearer a con- 

5 



INTRODUCTION. 



Ihemselves capable of solving the diflficulties, tliat lie against their 
respective opinions, it were sufficient to make all men of sense and 
learning doubt of their capacity and judgment : For the difficulties 
on both hands are such, that no ingenuous man that understands 
them, ^nll pretend himself capable of giving a fair solution of those, 
which press that side of the question he is inclined to. 

Again, whether we wiD, or will not, we must believe one side, 
and but one side, of the question is true ; that either matter is di- 
visible in infinitum, or not; that it consists of indivisibles, or not; 
these are contradictions. And it is one of the most evident propo- 
sitions that the mind of man is acquainted with, that contradictions 
cannot be tnie, or that both sides of a contradiction cannot hold. 
And yet against this truth, whereon much of our most certain know- 
ledge depends, insoluble difficulties may be urged : For it may be 
pretended, that here both sides of the contradiction are true, and 
this pretence may be enforced by the arguments above mentioned, 
which confirm the two opposite opinions, which no mortal can an- 
s^ver. Shall we therefore believe that contradictions may be true? 

That motion is possible I am not like to doubt, nor can I, while I 
know that I can rise and walk ; nor is he like to doubt of it, who 
sees me walk. And yet I doubt not the most ingenious of our athe- 
istical wits would find himself sufficiently straitened, were the argu- 
ments of Zeno Eleates against motion well urged, by a subtle dis- 
putant. I shall offer one argument against motion, which I am fully 
satisfied will puzzle the most subtle advei-saries of religion to solve 
satisfyingly. There are stronger arguments proving that matter 
is divisible in infinitum than any mortal can solve or answer, though 
I perhaps believe it untrue. And it is as certain as the sun is in 
-the firmament, that if matter is divisible in infinitum, it consists 
of an infinite number of parts — (what some talk of indefinite is a 
shelter of ignorance, and if it is used any other way than as a shield 
to ward off difficulties for a while in a public dispute, the users can- 
not be excused either of gross ignorance, rooted prejudice, or dis- 
ingenuity.) This being laid down as proven, and proven it may be 
by arguments, which none living can satisfy, that matter is divisi- 
ble in infinitum, and that consequently it contains an infinite num- 
ber of parts. Nor is it less certain, that according to these conclu- 
sions laid down, if one body move upon the surface of another, as 
for instance, an inch in a minute's time, it must pass by an infinite 
number of parts; and it is undeniable, that it cannot pass one of 



" tradictioTi, than the very notion of body includes in it; the divisibility in 
*• infinitum of any finite extension, involving- us, whether we grant or deny it, 

in consequences impossible to be explicated, or made in our apprehensions 
" consistent; consequences that carry greater difficult}-, and more apparent 

absurditv than any thing' that can follow from the notion of an immaterial 

substance-" 



fNTRODUCTION. 



35 



that infinite number of parts without some portion of time. Now 
if so, what a vast portion of time will it require to make that little 
journey, which we know can be performed in a moment ! Will it 
not evidently require an eternity i What difficulty can any urge, 
more difficult to be solved, against religion than this ? And yet for 
all this he were a fool who would doubt of motion. 

As to mathematical certainty though many boasts are made of 
the firmness of its demonstrations ; yet these may, upon this ground, 
be called all in question. And I nothing doubt, that if men's inter- 
ests, real or pretei)ded, lay as cross to them, as they are supposed 
to do to the truths of a religion, many more exceptions might be made 
against them, than are against those, and upon full as good, if not 
better reason. In justification of this assertion, I might proceed 
to demonstrate how trifling even the definitions of geometry, the 
firmest of all the mathematical sciences, are. Its difinitions might 
be alleged, upon no inconsiderable grounds, trifling, nonsensical and ri- 
diculous. Its demands or its postulates, declared plainly impracticable. 
Its axioms or self-evident propositions — controvertible, and by them- 
selves they are controverted. Any one who would see this made 
good in particular instances, may consult (besides others) the learn- 
ed Huetius^s Demonstratio Evangelica, where, in the illustration 
of his definitions, axioms and postulates, he compares them with 
those of geometr}^, and prefers them to these, and shows they are 
incumbered with fewer difficulties than the other, though without 
derogating from the just worth and evidence of mathematical scien- 
ces. Besides what he has observed, I may add this one thing 
more, that those sciences deserve not any great regard, save as 
they are applied to the use of life, and in a subserviency to man's 
advantage. And when thus they are applied to practice, the diffi- 
culty is considerably increased, and they may be easily loaded with 
innumerable and insoluble inconveniences. For then, their defini- 
tions cease to be the definition of names, and are to be taken as the 
definitions of things that are actually in being. Their demands 
must not be practicable, but put in practice. And who sees not 
liow many inextricable difficulties the practiser will be cast upon ? 
The demonstration may proceed bravely so long as they hold in 
the theory, and mean by Pnnctim, idcujus pars nulla est;^ and 
the same may be said of lines and surfaces, and all their figures ; 
without obliging us to believe that really there are any such things. 
But w hen we come to the practice, they must go further, and take 
it for granted, that there are such points, lines, surfaces and figures. 
This turns what was before only an explication of a name, into the 
definition of a thing. And therefore I am now left at liberty to 
dispute, whether there is any such thing ; or, whether indeed it is 

' ^' A point, is, that which has no parts.'* 



INTRODUCTIOiY. 



possible that there should be such. And who sees not now, thai 
they are incumbered with as many difficulties as may perhaps be 
urged against any science whatever. 

It were endle&s to enumerate the things we must believe, without 
being capable to resolve the difficulties about them. The veriest 
infidel must suppose that something is eternal, or all things are eter- 
nal, or that they jumped into being without any cause. Whichso- 
ever of these positions he shall choose, he is led into a labyrinth of 
difficulties, from v/hich no mortal wit can extricate him. We must 
all own, that either matter and motion are the principle of thought ; 
or, that there are immaterial substances which affect matter, and 
are stmngely affected by what befals it. Whichsoever side any 
shall choose, he is cast upon inextricable difficulties. Much more 
might be said on this head ; but what has been said is more than 
enough to shew, that if this course is taken, it saps the foundations 
of all human knowledge, and there is no part of it safe. 

Besides, this way of questioning religion upon the pretence of 
difficulties lying against it, is contrary to the common sense of 
mankind, contradicts the practice of all wise men, and is inconsist- 
ent with the very nature of our faculties. For, if I have a clear 
unexceptionable and convincing proof for any truth, it is against all 
reason to reject it, because I have not so full and comprehensive 
knowledge of the nature and circumstances of the object, as is ne- 
cessary to enable me to solve all difficulties that may occur about 
it : Yea, such is the nature of our faculties, that to justify in the 
opinion of the nicest inquirers after truth, nay, to extort an assent, 
clear proof is sufficient ; whereas, to untie all knots, and solve all 
bjections, perfect and all- comprehensive knowledge is absolutely 
needful ; which man's condition allows him not to expect about the 
meanest things. And the more remote any thing lies from com- 
mon observation, the less reason there is still to look for a fullness 
of knowledge and exemption from difficulties. If therefore men 
will turn sceptics in religion, to justify themselves, they must at- 
tempt the proofs whereon it is grounded. Sampson-like, they must 
grasp the pillars that support the fabric, and pull them down. If 
this is not done, nothing is done. And he that will undertake this, 
must have a full view of their force, and find where their strength 
lies : Now a serious view of this will be sufficient to deter any wise 
man from the undertaking. 

In a word, this scepticism can yield no ease or satisfaction to a 
reasonable soul. For if a man shall think rationally, his reason will 
suggest to him, that though all religion at present seems uncertain 
to him, yet upon trial perhaps he may find the grounds of religion 
so evident, that he cannot withhold his assent. This will at least 
oblige him to a serious inquiry into the truth. Next, in uncertain- 
ttes (supposing, after serious inquiry, he still thinks the truths of 



INTRODUCTION. 



3? 



x eligion such) a prudent man will incline to what is most probable. 
Finally he will choose and steer such a course of life as will be 
safest, in case he shall in experience afterv/ards find, that there is 
a God, and a future state. All which shew the folly of our scep- 
tics, and, were it seriously considered, would much mar their design, 
which is, thereby to justify a licentious life. 

Now we have considered, and sufficiently exposed the two first 
branches of the abovementioned choice : and consequently every 
man must find himself cast upon a necessity of adopting one of these 
two — He must either betake himse\i to natural religion, and so turn 
Deist; or he must embrace the scriptures, and turn Christian: For 
as to the Jewish religion, it is not likely to gain many converts. 

If therefore we are able to demonstrate the utter insufficiency of 
natural religion, in opposition to the deists, who set up for it, we 
reduce every man to this choice, that he must be a Christian or an 
Atheist; or, which is the same upon the matter, a man of no reli- 
gion ; for an insufficient religion is in effect none. And to demon- 
strate this, that natural religion is utterly insufficient, that unas- 
sisted reason is not able to guide us to happiness, and satisfy us as 
to the great concerns of rehgion, is the design of the subsequent 
sheets. In them we have clearly stated and endeavored with 
closeness to argue this points We have brought the pleadings of the 
learned Lord Herbert, and the modern deists, vfho do but copy after 
him, to the bar of reason, examined their utmost force, and, if I mis- 
take it not, found them weak and inconclusive. 

As for the occasion of my engagement in this controversy, it was 
not such as commonly gives rise to writings of this nature. I un- 
dertook it with no design of publication. I v/as pi ovoked by no 
adversary in particular. But every man being obliged to under- 
stand upon what grounds he receives his religion, I studied the 
point for my ov/n satisfaction, and in compliance with my duty. 

As for the reasons of my undertaking this part of the contro- 
versy, I shall not say much. The only w ise GOD, who has deter- 
mined the times before appointed, and made of one blood all nations 
of men that dwell on the earth, and has appointed them the bounds 
of their habitation, has cut out different pieces of work for them, 
east them into different circumstances, and hereby exposed them to 
trials and temptations that are not of the same kind. As every 
man is obliged to cultivate in the best manner he can the bounds 
of land assigned to him, and defend his possessions ; so every one 
is concerned to improve and defend after the best form he can, 
those truths, which his circumstances have- obliged him to take pe- 
culiar notice of, and which his temptations, of whatever sort, have 
endeavoured, or may attempt to wrest out of his hands. 

Besides, we live in a warlike age, wherein every one must be of 
^ party in matters of religion. And religion is a cause in which, 



INTRODUCTION. 



when disputed, no man is allowed to stand neutral. As ali are con- 
cerned to choose the right side, so every one is obliged to provide 
himself with the best armour his arsenal can afford, both for the de- 
fending himself and others that own the same cause, and to annoy 
the common enemy. Nor is this work peculiarly confined unte 
those, who by oflSce are obliged to it : For in imhlico discriminej 
est omnis homo miles. ^ 

Besides, it is well known, that the most bold attempt that ever 
was made upon revealed religion, since the entrance of Christianity 
into the world, has been made, in our day, by men, who have set up 
for natural religion, and who have gone over from Christianity/ unto 
refined Paganism; under the name of Deism. Two things they 
have attempted ; — to overthrow revelation, and to advance natural 
religion. The last work has been undertaken, I may without breach 
of charity boldly say it, not so much out of any real affection to 
the principles or duties of natural religion, as to avoid the odium 
inevitably following upon a renunciation of all religion ; and because 
they saw that men would not easily quit Christianity, without some- 
thing were substituted in its room, that might at least have the 
name of religion. Revealed religion has been worthily defended 
by many, of old and of late, at home and abroad ; but the insuffi- 
edenci/ of natural religion has been less insisted on, at least in that 
way that is necessary to straiten an obstinate adversary. And se- 
veral things incline me to think an attempt of this nature seasona- 
ble, if not necessary, at this time. 

The times are infectious, and Deism is the contagion that spreads. 
And that which has carried many, particularly of our unwary youth 
of the betfUr quality, off their feet, and engaged them to espouse 
this cause, — is the high pretence that this way makes to reason. 
They tell us, that their religion is entirely reasonable, and that they 
admit nothing, save what this dictates to them, and they endeavor 
to represent others as easy and credulous men. Now I thought it 
meet to demonstrate, for undeceiving of such, that none are more 
credulous, none have less reason upon their side, than they who 
get up for rational religion. 

Again, we have stood sufficiently long upon the defensive part, 
we have repulsed their efforts against revelation. It seems now 
seasonable, that we should act offensively, and try how they can de- 
fend their own religion, and whether they can give as good account 
of it as has been given of Christianity. To stand always upon the 
defensive part, is to make the enemy doubt ours, and turn proud of 
their own strength. 

The reasonableness of this will further appear, if we consider 
the quality of the adversaries we have to do with, and their manner 
of management. The enemies who have engaged revealed religion, 

* " In a time of public clanger even' man is a soldier".'* 



INTRODUCTION. 



3^ 



sensible of their own weakness to defend themselves at home, and 
endure close fight, do commonly make inroads, where they expect 
none, or a faint resistance. They desrgn not so much to conquer, as 
to disturb. Jest, buffoonry, or at best sophisms, and such little ai'- 
tifices, are the arguments they use, and the weapons of their war- 
fare. The best way to make such rovers keep at home is, to car- 
ry the war into their own country, and to ruin those retreats they 
betake themselves to when attacked. They have seen what Chris- 
tians can say in defence of revealed religion. It is now high time 
to see how they can acquit themselves on behalf of natural reli- 
gion. It is easy to impugn. It is a defence that gives the best proof 
of the defender's skill, and says most for the cause he maintains. 

I own indeed that most who have evinced the truth of revealed 
religion, have said something of the weakness of natural religion. 
But this has only been by the bye, and in a way too loose to strait- 
en obstinate opposers, not to speak of the too large cpncessions that 
have been made them by some. 

Finally, natural religion being the only retreat, to which the 
apostates from Christianity betake themselves, and whereby they 
think themselves secured from the imputation of plain atheism, it is 
hoped, that a full and convincing discovery of its weakness, may 
incline such as are not quite debauched, to look how they quit 
Christianity, and engage with that which, if this attempt is success-, 
ful, must henceforward pass for disguised Atheism, 

It now only remains, that I offer some account of the reasons that 
have induced me to manage this controversy in a method so far 
different from that which is commonly used. The reasons of this 
have been above insinuated, and I shall not insist much further on 
them, lest I should seem to detract from performances to which I 
pay a very great regard. The method some have chosen, in ma- 
naging this controversy with the Deists, to me appears inconve- 
nient. They begin with an endeavor to establish the grounds of 
natural religion, and by the help of light borrowed from revelation, 
they carry the matter so far, and extend natural religion to such a 
compass, that it looks pretty complete-like ; which has too evident 
a tendency to lessen its real defects, and make them appear incon- 
siderable. 

Again, I am afraid that some have gone near to give up the whole 
cause. This fault I would be very loth to charge upon all. Many 
I know have dealt faithfully in it, and deserve praise. But how to 
excuse some in this case I know not. One tells us that, " It is 
" true indeed that natural religion declares and tomprises all the 
" parts of religion, that are generally and in all times either neces - 
" sary or requisite And much more to the same purpose. 
This is much such another assertion of the weakness of natural re- 



* Discourse concerning Natural and ReTealed Helj|?ion, bv Stephen Xvo, 
Part 2, Chap. 1. pag^e 97. 



40 



iNTRODUCTION. 



ligion against the Deists, as the same author gives us of the per*i 
fedion of the scriptures, in opposition to the same persons in another* 
place of his book. " I could," says he " prove, 1 think, hj unde- ^j 
" niable, unavoidable instances,"! what Mr. Gregory of Oxford | 
says in his preface to some critical notes on the scriptures that he 
published, viz. " That there is no author whatsoever that has suf- 
" fered so much by the hand of time as the Bible has." Is this 
the way to overthrow the sufficiency of natural religion, and to de- 
fend the scriptures ? This is not the only remark 1 could make 
upon this author, were it my design. But this may let us see how 
necessary it is to deal a little more plainly with the assertors of | 
natural religion. 1 

Further, to adorn natural religion with the improvements bor- 
rowed from revelation, is the ready way to furnish those who set 
up for its sufficiency, with pretences to serve their design, and to 
straiten themselves, when they come to shew its defects. And 
perhaps I should not mistake it far, if I asserted, that the strongest 
arguments urged by Deists, have been drawn from unwary conceS" 
sions made them by their adversaries. | 

And this is the more considerable, that the persons, with whom I 
we have to do in this controversy, are, generally speaking, either ] 
of no great discernment, or of small application; who have no great! 
. mind to wait upon the business, or look to the bottom of it. Now I 
when such persons find many things granted, they are ready to j 
think all is yielded, and so run away with it, as if the cause were | 
their own. That such concessions have done no good service, 
there is too much reason to believe. This I am sure of, it would 
have been long before the Deists could have trimmed up natural 
religion so handsomely, and made it appear so like a sufficient reli- 
gion, as some have done, who meant no such thing. 

Finally, the apostle Paul's method is doubtless most worthy of 
imitation, who, when he is to prove justification by faith, and to en- 
force an acceptance of it, first strongly convinces of sin, and then 
urges the utter insufficiency of works for accomplishing that purpose. 
The best way in my opinion, to engage men to close with revealed 
religion, is strongly to argue the insufficiency of natural religion. 

As to the performance itself, and what I have therein attained, 
I am not the competent judge. Every reader must judge as he 
sees cause. 1 have not the vanity to expect that it should please 
every body. The vast compass of the subject, the variety of the 
purposes, the uncommonness of many, if not most of them, with re^ 
spect to which I*was left to WTuk in untrodden paths, and other diffi- 
culties of a like nature, with candid and judicious readers will go a 
great way towards my excuse in lesser escapes. As for the sub- 
stance of the ensuing discourse, I am bold to hope, that upon the 
strictest trial it shall be found true, and that it is pleaded for in 
words of truth and soberness. 



j- Ubi supra, page 199, 



AN INQUIRY, ^c. 



C H A P. L 

Giving a short account of the rise, occasionSy and progress of 
Deism, especially in England ; the opinions of the Deists, and the 
different sorts of them* 

^HERE is no man, who makes it his concern to understand 
what the state of religion has, of late years, been, and now is, 
particularly in these nations, but knows that Deism has made a con- 
siderable progress. Since therefore it is against those who go un- 
der this name, that this undertaking is designed, it is highly expedi- 
ent, if not plainly necessary, that in the entry, we give some ac- 
count of the occasions and rise of Deism,, the principal opinions of 
the Deists, and some other things that may tend to clear the mat- 
ter discoursed in the subsequent sheets. 

It is not necessary that we inquire more largely into the causes 
of that general defection in principle and practice from the doctrine 
of the gospel which now every where obtains ; this has been judi- 
ciously done by others. 

Nor will it be needful to write at length the history of deism. 
This I think impracticable, because the growth of this sect has 
been very secret, and they have generally disguised their opinions: 
And perhaps till of late, they scarce had any settled opinion in 
matters of religion, if yet they have. But though it were prac- 
ticable, as it is not, yet it is not necessary to our present undertak- 
ing ; and if it were attempted, would require more helps, and more 
leisure, besides other things, than I am master of. 

One has of late written a pamphlet bearing this title, " An Ac- 
count of the Growth of Deism in England."* The author of it is 
not a deist, yet has done what in him lies to promote their cause, 
by setting off, with all the art and address he is master of, those 
things which he says have tempted many to turn deists, without 
any attempt to antidote the poison of them. 

* Printed anno. 1690. 



n AN INaUIRY INTO THE ] 

Another has wrote Reflections upon this pamphlet, wherein he^ 
has sufficiently shewn, that those alleged by the former author, 
v»'ere not sufficient reasons to justify any in turning deist. But I 
conceive that is not the main question. If he had a mind to dis- 
prove the other author, he should have made it appear, that the 
particulars condescended upon by his antagonist, had no real influ- 
ence into this apostacy* Whether they gave a just cause for it is 
another question. I am satisfied they did not. But neither do those 
reasons of this defection, condescended on by the reflectory give a 
sufficient ground for it, Nor are there any reasons that can justi- 
fy any in relinquishing Christianity. The inquiry in this case is 
not, what just grounds have the deists to warrant them in, or en- 
gage them to this defection, for all christians own it impossible they 
should have any ; but the question is, what has given occasion ta 
any, thus to fall off from our religion ? Now I conceive both 
t^ese writers have hit uppn several of the true reasons of this 5 
though the first is apparently guilty of deep imprudence, I wish I 
might not say malice^ against Christianity, m proposing those temp- 
tations, with all the advantage he could give them, and that without 
any antidote : For which and other faults he has been justly, though 
modestly censured by the reflector. 

Although both of them have given some account of tliis matter, 
yet I conceive so much has not been said as may supercede a further 
inquiry, or make us despair of observing not a few things that have 
not had an inconsiderable influence, which are overlooked by both. 
Wherefore we shall in a few words propose our opinion of this mat- 
ter. And in delivering it, v,e shall not pursue the design of any 
■party, but make it evident that all parties have had their own ac- 
cession to the growth of this eviL Though I am sensible that this 
account will fall heavy upon a set of men in particular, who liave ol 
late years claimed the name of the Church of England ; though 
unjustly, if we take her Homilies, Articles, and consentient judir- 
ment of her renowned bisliops from the time of the Beformation ia 
Bishop Laud's time, for the standard of her doctrine and I so<; 
no reason why we ought not, I premised this ' to avoid any slis- 
picion of a design to brand the Church of England, witii an acces- 
sion to the growth of Deisin. And even in speaking of that set of 
men, whom I take to be principally guilty, I would not be under 
stood to speak so much of the design of the men^ as of the nativt 
tendency of their doctrine and practices. 

The many groundless, nay ridiculous pret»^uoes to revelation, 
and bold impostures of the Church of Kome, and of those who 
have supported that interest ; their impudence in obtruding upon 



* See Bishop of Sarutn's Explanation of Ihfj Tbu'tv-Dine Articles." on art. 
17; p. 168. 



!>RINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 



43 



the world, doctrines cross to reason and sense, and principles of 
morality subversive of the whole lam of nature ;-\ their scandalous 
endeavour to bespatter the scriptures^ and weaken their authority, 
on pui-pose to bring them into discredit^ to make way for the design- 
ed advancement oiihm: mlA traditions into an equality with them, 
and to bring the world under a necessity of throwing themselves up- 
on the Care and conduct of their infdllibh guide^ though they can- 
not yet tell u« which is he ; their gross and discernible hypocrisy 
in carrying on secular^ nay impious and unjust designs, under the 
Bpecious pretences of holiness and religion ; their zeal for a form 
and shew of religion, a worship plainly thcatrical^X while the lives of 
their Popes, Cardinals, Monks, Nuns, and all their highest preten- 
ders to devotion have been scandalously le^^ d, even to a proverb ;!| 
Xhe immoral morality, atheistical divinity, and abominable practi- 
ces of the Jesuits, those zealous supporters and strongest props of 
the Popish interest^ but in very deed the worst enemies of mankind, 
the subverters of all true piety^ morality^ and government in the 
world ; these, I say, together with many other evils of a like nature, 
every where observable in that church, have been, for a very long 
lime too evident and gross to be denied^ or hid from persons of any 
tolerable sagacity, living among them : And, by the observation of 
those and the like evils, continued in, approved^ justified, and adher- 
ed unto ; and the cruelty of that church in destroying all those who 
\vould not receive, by wholesalcj all those shocking absurdities, not a 
few who lived among them-, and were unacquainted with the power 
of religion, that was necessary to engage them cordially to espouse 
the reformed interest^ got their hiinds leaveited with prejudices, 
and furnished With specious pretences against all revealed religion ; 
which they the more boldly entertained, because they knew it was 
less criminal to turn Athicst than Protestant in places where the Po- 
pish interest prevailed* 

These prejudices once taken ilp^ daily grew stronger, by the ob- 
servation of new instances of this sort, and the constancy of those 
of that communion in acting the same part. And men of wit and 
Tearningj who soonest saw into this mystery, and had no inward 
bonds on them, failed not to hand about and cultivate those preten- 
ces to that degree, that many begun to own their apostacy, if not 
openly, yet more covertly. 

Not long after the beginning of the last elapsed century, so far as 
I can learn, some in Prance and Italy began to form a sort of a new 
party. They called themselves Theists, or Deists ; unjustly pre- 
tending that they Were the only persons who owned the One true 

t Growth of Deism, p. 5. Reflections on it, p. 8, 

i See Jesuit's Morals. 

|j Ckrkson*s Practical Divinity of Papists, 



44 



AN INatriRY INTO THE 



God. And hereby they plainly intimated that they had rejected 
the name of Christ. They rejected all revelation as cheats priut- 
crafty and imposture, pretending that there was nothing sincere in 
religion, save what lutture^s light taught. However, being generally 
persons too fond of a present life, and too uncertain about a future^ 
they thought it not meet to put too much to the hazard for this their 
•pretended religion. It was a refined sort of Paganism which they 
embraced, and they were to imitate the Heathen philosophers, who^ 
whatever their peculiar sentiments were in matters of religion, yet 
for peace's sake, they looked on it as safe to follow the mode,, and 
comply with the religious usages that prevailed in the places where 
they lived. That which made this party the more considerable 
was that it was made up of men, who pretended to learning, ingenu- 
ity, breeding, and who set up for wits. They pretended to write 
after the copy of the new philosophers, who scorned that philosoph- 
ical slavery, which former ages had been under to Aristotle. They 
inculcated that credulity was no less dangerous in matters of religion 
than in matters of philosophy. And herein certainly they were not 
mistaken. But one may justly suspect, that at the same time, 
while they pretended to guard against easiness in believing, they 
have fallen into the worst credulif i/y as well as ruining incrediditT/ « 
For none is so credulous as an atheist. 

Much about the same time, some novel opinions began to be 
much entertained in Holland, in matters of religion. The broach- 
ers of (hem being men learned and diligent, carefully cultivated 
them, till they were ripened into something very near-akin to plaii? 
^ocinianisni, which is but one remove from Deism. It was not long 
after this when those nev,--fangled notions took footing in England 
and began to be embraced and countenanced by some topping 
churchmen, who, forgetful of their Articles, Homilies, and Subscrip 
tions, and the conduct of their predecessors ^ carefully maintained 
^nd zealously propagated this new divinity. 

I shall not make bold to judge what tlie designs of those were, 
%vho appeared most zealous lor these new notions : This is to be 
left to the judgment of him, who searches the heart of the children of 
men, and will bring forth things that are norj hid. But there were 
not a few reasons to suspect that the Jesuits had a considerable 
hand in disseminating themj and that the others were their tools ; 
though it is likely they did not suspect this. The Jesuits vaunted 
that they had planted the sovereign drug of Arminianism in Eng- 
land, which in time would purge out the northern heresy/^ This it 
could not otherwise do, than by shaking men as to all principles of 
religion. And it is a known maxim, that make men once Atheists 



* Rushworth's Collect. Part 1, pag. 475. If.Ucr by a Jesuit to the Rec- 
tor of Brussels. See pag-. 62, ibid. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 45 



it will be easy to turn them Papists. The jealousies many discern- 
ing people had of this, were considerably increased when it was 
seen with what violence the abettors of this new divinity appeared 
against the more moderate part of the church of England, as well as 
the dissenters, upon the account of some ceremonies, owned by 
themselves as indifferent in their own nature ; while at the same 
time, they expressed a great deal of tenderness if not respect to the 
Church of Rome, and made proposals for wiion with her. 

But whatever there is as to this, it is certain that this divinity 
opens a door, and has given encouragement to that apostacy from 
Christianity, that has since followed, and still increases under the 
name of Deism, 

This divinity teaches us, that no more is necessary to be believ- 
ed, in order to salvation, save what is confessed and owned by all 
that are called christians. Dicunt se non vidcre wide, aut quo 
wodo, prcBier jmuca isia, qu(2 apud omiics in confesso sunt, alia 
phira adkuc necessaria esse ostendi aut elici possit ;^ that is, 
" They see not how it can be made appear, that besides these 
" few things, which are by them allov/ed, any others are necessary 
" to salvation.'* Consonantly hereto, they expressly deny any 
thing to be fundamental which has been controverted, or after- 
wards may be so.f In a word they teach that we are not necessa- 
rily to believe any thing, save v/hat is evident to us. And that 
only is to be reckoned evident, which is confessed by all, and to 
which nothing that has any appearance of truth can be opposed. 
Now after this, what is left in Christianiiy ? The divinity, the pu- 
rity, the perfection and sufficiency of the scriptures ; the Trinity, 
Deity of Christ, his satisfaction, the whole dispensation of the Spi~ 
rit, justification by faith alone, and all the articles of the Christian 
religion, have been and are controverted. None of them there- 
fore is necessary to salvation. Are not men left at liberty, with- 
out hazard of their salvation, to renounce all, save what is common 
to Christianity with natural religion ? And since even some of it^ 
most considerable articles about the attributes of GOD and his 
providmce,future rewards ^ud. punishments, have been, or may be 
controverted, why may we not reckon them unnecessary too ? The 
Deists have borrowed their doctrine of evidence, and opposed it to 
the Christian religion. One of them tells us, " If our happiness 
** depends upon our belief, we cannot firmly believe, till our reason 
** be convinced of a supernatural religion.*' j And if the reasons of 
it were evident, there could be no longer any contention about re- 
ligion. How little does this differ from that divinity which tells us, 



* Remonstr. Apol. Fol. 12. 

t Ibt. Cap. 24, Fol. 276 ; and Cap. 25, Fol. 283. 

i Oracles of Reason, pag. 206. Letter by A. W. to C. Blount. 



46 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



that GOD is obliged to offer us such arguments to which nothing 
that has an appearance of truth can be opposed ! And if this be 
wanting, they are not to lie received as ariicles of faith. Now if 
fefter this the Deists can but offer any thing that has an appearance jj 
of truth against Christianity, they are free to reject it in cumiilo. ] 
This divinity reduces Christianity to mere morality. Nothing 
else is universally agreed to, if that be so. The supposition of 
*' siUj (says one that wore a mitre) does not bring in any new reli- 
" gion, but only makes new circumstances and names of old things, 
and requires new helps and advantages to improve our powers, 
and to encourage our endeavors : And thus the law of grace i& 
nothing but a restitution of the lc(iv of nature,^^^ 
And further, lest we should think this morality, wherein they 
place the whole of Christianity, owes its being to the agency of 
the sanctifying Spirit, we are told, that "the Spirit of God, and 
*^ the grace of Christ, when used as distinct from moral abilities 
** and performances, signify nothing."f And a complaint is 
iilade of some who fill the world " with a buz and noise of the di* 
vine Spirit."J Hence many sermons Were rather such as be- 
came the chair of a philosopher, teaching ethicks, than that of one, 
t^ho by oflBce is bound to know and preach nothing save Christ 
and him crucified* Heathen morality has been substituted in the 
room of gospel holiness. And ethicks by some have been preach- 
ed instead of the gospel of Christ. And if any complaints Were 
tiiade of this conduct, though by men who preached the necessity 
t)f holiness, urged by ail the gospel motives, and carefully practised 
\^hat they preached in their lives, they were exposed and reject-* 
ed, and the persons who offered them were reflected on as enemies 
to morality ; whereas the plain truth of the case wa>^ they did not 
Complain of men being taught to be moral, but that they were not 
taUght somewhat more. 

After men once were taught that the controverted doctrines of 
feligion were not necessary to salvation, and that all that was ne= 
cessary thereto Was to be referred to and comprehended under 
Wdrcility^ and that there was no need of regeneration^ or the sanc- 
tifying influences of the Spirit of Christ in order to the perform-* 
titiCe of our duty, it is easy to see hovv^ light the difference was to 
h& accounted betwixt a Christian and an honest 7noral Heathen. 
And if any small temptation offeredj how natural was it for men 
to judge that the hazard was not great, to step over from Chris- 
iianiiy to Deism, ivhlch k Paganism a-la-mode. And to encou- 
rage them to it, it Is well known how favourably many used to ex- 

c ' 

* S. Park's Defence of trrlcj. Pull. p^^gT 
T Idem ibidf 343. 
i Eccler. PoUt. png*. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 47 



press themselves of the state of the Heathens ; Httle minding that 
the Christian religion represents them as without God^ and with^ 
out Christy and without hope^ children of wrathy and dead in tres^ 
passes and sins. 

I need not stand to prove that this divinity is nearly allied to So^ 
cinianifenit It is well known that they reckon the Socinians souncl 
in the fundamentals, and therefore think them in no hazard, pro* 
vided they live morally. Hence men have been emboldened 1q 
turn Socinians. And every body may see by what easy removes, 
one may from Socinianism arrive at Deism. For my jwt I can 
see little difference betwixt the two. The Deist indeed seems tho 
honester man of the two ; he rejects the gospel, and owns tliat hq 
does so : The other, I mean the Socinian, pretends to retain it. 
But I shall not insist any further in discovering the tendency of 
this new divinitij to libertinism, and Deismy^mcG others have fully 
and judiciously done it from the most unquestionable arguments 
and documents. And more especially, since in fact it is evident, 
that wherever this new divinity has obtained, Socinians and deists 
abound, and many who embrace it daily go over to them ; which 
I take to be the surest evidence, if it be duly circumstantiate, of 
the tendency of this doctrine to encourage those opinions, ancl 
least liable to any just exception. And perhaps I might add, that 
few, comparatively very few, who own the contrary doctrine, have 
gone into this new way, where that divinity has not been enter* 
tained. 

But to return whence we have for a little digressed, to the state 
■*ilf religion in England. No sooner were they advanced io power 
l^hQ had drunk in those opinions, but presently the doctrines that 
are purely evangelical, by which the apostles converted the world, 
the reformers promoted and carried on our reformation from Pope^ 
ry, and the pious preachers of the church of England did keep 
somewhat of the life and power of religion amongst their people ; 
these doctrines, I say, began to be decryed ; justification by the 
righteousness of Christ, which Luther called Articulus stantis aut 
cadentis ecdesia,^^ that redemption that is in him^ even the forgive^ 
ness of sins through faith in his blood ; the mystery of the grace, 
mercy and love of God manifested in Christ; the great mystery of 
godliness ; the dispensation of the Spirit for conviction, renovation, 
sranctification, consolation and edification of the church, by a supply 
of spiritual gifts, and other doctrines of a like tendency, were, upon 
all occasions, boldly exposed, and discredited in press and pulpit. 
The ministers who dared to avow them, from a conviction of the 
truth, the sense of the obligation of their promises and subscriptions 
to the Article?, were sure to have no preferment, nay, to bf 

* " An article by which the Church must either stand or fall'' 



48 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



branded With the odious names of Calvinisfs, Puritans^ FanaticSy 
and I know not what. 

The doctrines of faith were not regarded as belonging to the 
foundation of religion. The morality of the Bible was pretended 
the only thing that was necessary ; and as much of the doctrine^ as 
all, even Socinians, Quakers, and all the rest were agreed in, were 
sufficient. And if any opposed thisj though in civil language and 
by fair arguments, they were sure to be exposed as enemies to mo- 
rality ; although their adversaries durst not put the contest on this 
issue with them, that he should be reckoned the greatest friend to 
morality who was most blameless in his walk, and shewed it the 
gi'eatest practical regard. They coiild exercise charity, forbear- 
ance, and love to a Socinian that had renounced all the fundamen* 
tal truths of religion ; but none to a poor Dissenter, who sincerely- 
believed all the doctrinal articles ; nay, even a sober churchman, 
%vho could not consent to new unauthorised ceremonies, was become 
intolerable. So that men, at this timcj might, with much more cre- 
dit and less hazard^ turn Socinian, or any thing, than discover the 
least regard to truths contained in the articles, owned by most of 
the Reformed churches, and taught by our own Reformers. This 
is too well known to be denied by any one who knows how things 
were carried on at that time and since.*" 

Further, whereas preachers formerly, in order to engage men to 
a compKance with the gospel, were wont to press much upon them 
their guilt, the impossibihty of standing before God in their own 
righteousness, their impotency, their misery by the fall, the necessi- 
ty of regeneration, illumination, the power of grace to make them 
willing to comply, and that no man could sincerely call Christ Lord, 
and be subject to him practically, save hy the Holy Ghost ; ' care 
v7as now taken to unteach them all this, and to shew them how very 
little they had lost by the fall, if any thing was lost by itj either in 
point of light to discern, or po?i;er and inclination to practice duty. 
They were told how great length their own righteousness would go, 
and that it would do their business ; they might safely stand before 
Ood in it ; or if there was any room for Chrisfs righteousness, it 
was only to piece out their own, where it was wanting. In a word, 
the people were told, what fine persons many of the Heathens were, 
who knew nothing of illumination, regeneration, or what the Bible 
was, and how little odds, if any at all, there was betwixt grace and 
morality. 



* Any one that would be satisfied in the truth of this, must peruse the ser- 
inons and writing's published by that party of old and of late, and the histories 
of those times, particularly Rushisorth's Collect^ the speeches of the long Par- 
liament, and later wi-itings, and they will find documents more than enough. 
And they may consult also HonoHi Be?U*s Comment, de statu £cclesi(g Angli* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 49 



And, whereas a veneration of the Lord's day was a mean to keep 
people under some concern about religion, and that day was spent 
by faithful ministers, in pressing upon the consciences of their peo- 
ple, those new contemned gospel truths, to the spoiling of the whole 
plot ; care was taken to discredit and bring it into contempt. Mi- 
nisters, instead of telling them on that day, that they were too mucli 
inclined to sin, levity, folly, and vanity, were commanded to dea! 
with them as persons too much inclined to be serious ; and instead! 
of preaching the gospel, they were required, under the highest 
pains, to entertain them with a profane Book of Sports. And for 
disobedience many were re jected. And that they might be taught 
by example as well as precept, a Sandai/^s evening mask was pub- 
licly acted, where were present persons of no mean note."^ 

Moreover, a state game being now to be played, the pulpit, press, 
religion and all were made basely to truckle to state designs^ and to 
the enslaving of the nations, by advancing the doctrines of passive 
obedience^ non-resistance, mid jure-divino-Sfup of kings ;f whereby 
men of religion were wounded to see the ordinances of Christ pros- 
tituted to such projects, as were entirely foreign, to say no worse, to 
the design of their institution : And mea of no religion, or who were 
not fixed about it, were drawn over to think it a mere cheat, and 
that the design of it was only to carry on secular interest under spe- 
cious pretences. 

At length by those means, and some other things, which are not 
of our present consideration, concurring, confusions ripened into a 
civil war, whereby every one w.as left to speak, write, and live as 
he pleased. 

Many who intended no hurt, while they upon honest designs in- 
quired into, and laid open the faults of the topping clergy, did una- 
ivares furnish loose and atheistical men with pretences against the 
ministry. And what in truth gave only ground for a dislike of the 
persons faulty, was received, by many as a just ground of prejudice 
against the very pastoral as priest-crafty and all who are clothed 
with it, as a set of self-designing men. 

The body of the people, who had been debauched by the exam- 
ple of a scandalous clergy, and hardened in sin by the intermission 
q{ all discipline, (which of late had only been exercised against the 
sober and pious who could not go into the measures that were then 
taken,) the neglect of painful preaching, the book of sports and 
pastimor, and who had their heads filled with airy and self-elating 
jii^lions of man's a5i/?*/y to good, free will, universal grace, and the 
hk-\ and who now, when they much needed the inspection of their 
f -'tiulil pastors, were deprived of it, many of them, by the iniquity 

* Rushworth's Collect. Part 2, Vol. 1, paj^e 459. 
t Bishop of Sai'uin on the Articles, Art. 7, pa^'e 152. 

7 



5D AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

cf the times, being forced to take sanctuary in foreign nations ; the 
people, I say, by these things turned quite giddy, and broke into 
numberless sects and parties. Every one who had entertained 
those giddy notions was zealous, even to madness, for propagating 
them, and thought himself authorised to plead for them, print for 
them, and preach them. The office of the ministry, that had 
before been rendered contemptible by the suppression of the best 
preachers, and the scandalous lives of those who were mainly en* 
couraged, was now made more so, by the intrusion of every bold, 
ignorant and assuming enthusiast. The land was filled with books 
of controversy, stuffed with unsound, offensive and scandalous ten- 
ets, which were so multiplied, as they never have been in any na- 
tion of the world, in so small a compass of time. The generality of 
the people being, by the neglect of a scandalous ministry, and the 
discouragement of those who were laborious, drenched in ignorance, 
were easily shaken by those controversial writings that were disse» 
minated every where, and became an easy prey to every bold secta» 
rian. 

Many of the better sort set themselves to oppose these extremes, 
and from a detestation of tliem were carried, some into one evil^ 
some into another ; whereby the common enemy reaped advantage, 
^nd fnifh suffered even by its defenders. Ministers Vv^ho desired to 
be faithful, by the abounding of those errors, were forced to op- 
pose them in public ; whereby preaching became less edifying, and 
disputes increased, to the great detriment of religion. 

The nation was thus crumbled into parties, in matters both civil 
and rehgious, the times turned cloudy and dark. Pretences of re- 
ligion were dreadfully abused on all hands to subserve other designs. 
And even the best l3oth of ministers and people wanted not their 
own sad failings, which evil men made the w orst use of. The word 
s.nd providence were used in favour of so many cross opinions and 
practices, that not a few began to run into that same extreme, 
which some in France and Italy had before gone into. And about 
this time it was that the learned Herbert began to write in favour of 
Deism : Of which we shall have occasion to speak afterwards. 

After tlie restoration, things were so far from being mended, that 
they grew worse. Lewdness and Atheism were encouraged at the 
court, which now looked like a little Sodom. The clergy turned no 
less scandalous, if not more so than before. Impiety was, as it 
were, publieiy and with applause acted and taught on the stage, and 
all serious religion was there exposed and ridiculed. Yea, the pul- 
pits of many became theatres, wbereupon men assumed the boldness 
to ridicule serious Godliness, and the gravest matters of religion ; 
such as communion with God, confession of sin, prayer by the Spi- 
rit, and the whole work of conversion. Controversial writings were 
multiplied, and in them grave and serious trutlis were handled in a 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 51 



jocular way. The scriptuses were burlesqued ; and the most im- 
portant truths, (under pretence of exposing the Dissenters, to the 
great grief of all good men among them, and in the church of Eng- 
land,) were treated with contempt and scorn. The pulpits were 
again prostituted to state designs and doctrines ; and the great 
truths of ihe gospel, in reference to mmCs misery, and his recovery 
by Jesus Christ, were entirely neglected by many ; and discourses 
of morality came in their place, I mean a morality that has no respect 
to Christ as its end, author, and the ground of its acceptance with 
God which is plain heathenism. The soberer, and the better part 
were traduced as enthusiastical, disloyal hypocrites, and I know not 
what. And sometimes they on the other hand, in their own de- 
fence, were constrained to lay open the impiety, atheism, and blas- 
phemous boldnes of their traducers in their way of management of 
divine things. And while matters were thus carried betwixt them, 
careless and indifferent men, especially of the better and most con- 
siderable quality, being debauched in their practice, by the licen- 
tiousness of the court, the immorality and looseness of the stage, 
were v/illing to conform their principles to their practice ; for which 
this state of things gave them a favourable occasion and plausible 
pretences. Men whose walk and way looked like any thing of a 
real regard to religion, they heard so often traduced as hypocrites, 
fanatics, and I know not v/hat, that they were easily induced to be- 
lieve them to be such. They who taught them so, on the other 
hand, by the liberty they assumed in practice, convinced these gen- 
tlemen, that whatever their profession was, yet they believed no- 
thing about religion themselves; and therefore it was easy to infer that 
all was but a cheat. Besides, the Popish party, who were sufficient- 
ly encouraged, while the sober Dissenters of the Protestant persua- 
sion were cruelly persecuted, made it their business to promote this 
unsettledness in matters of religion. They found themselves una- 
ble to stand their ground in way of fair debate, and therefore they 
craftily set themselves rather to shake others in their faith, than di- 
rectly to press them to a compliance with their own sentiments. 
And it is well known they wrote many books full of sophistry, plain- 
ly levelling at this, to bring men to believe nothing ; as well know- 
ing, that if they were once brought there, they would soon be 
brouglit to believe any thing in matters of religion. 

On these and the like occasions and pretences, arose this defec- 
tion from the gospel, which has been nourishsd by many of the 
same things which first gave it birth, till it is grown to such strength, 
as fills aU well-wishers to the interest of religion with just fears as to 
the issue. 

Nor was it any wonder that these pretences should take, (especial- 
ly with persons of liberal education and parts, who only were capable 
of observing those faults which gave occasion for them,) since the 



52 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



generality were prepared for, and inclined to such a defection, hy & 
long continuance under the external dispensation of the gospel, with- 
out any experience of its power, the prevalent love of lust, that 
makes men impatient of any thing that may have the least tenden- 
cy to restrain them from pursuing the gi-atification thereof ; to 
which we may add the natural enmity of the mind of man against 
the mystery of the gospel. 

There was another thing which at this time had no small influ- 
ence — the philosophical writings of ivlr. Hobbs, Spinoza, and some 
others of the same kidney, got, one way or other, a great vogue 
amongst our young gentry and students, whereby many were poi- 
soned with principles destructive of all true religion and morality. 

By those and the like means, tilings are now come to that pass, 
that not a few have been bold to avow their apostacy from the 
christian religion, not only in conversation, but in print. They 
disown the name of Christ, call themselves Beists^ and glory in 
that name. They have published many vaitings rellecting on the 
scriptures, and justifying themselves in rejecting them. 

And we have just reason to suspect, that, besides those who do 
avow their principles, who are perhaps as numerous in these lands 
as any where else, there are many, who yet are ashamed to speak 
it out, who bear them good-v;i}l, and who want only a little time 
more to harden themselves against the odivm that this way goes 
under, and a fair occasion of throwing off the mask, which they yet 
think meet to retain. Of this we have many indications. 

Many have sssumed an unaccountable boldness in treating things 
sacred and serious too freely in wridng and conversation. They 
make bold to jest upon the scriptures, and upon every occasion to 
traverse them. When once men have go]ie this length, the vene- 
ration due to that blessed book is gone, and they are in a fair 'way 
to reject it. 

Others have msde great advances to this defection, by dissemi- 
nating and entertaining reproaches against a standing ministry. It is 
known what contempt lias been cagt upon this order of men, whom 
God hath entrusted with the gospel dispe^l^^at^on, and who, by of- 
fice, are obliged to maintain its honor. If this order of men fall un- 
der that general contempt, which some do their utmost to bring 
them to, religion cannot long maintain its station am.ong as. When 
the principal means of the Lord's appointment are laid aside, or 
rendered useless, no other means will avail. 

And hereon, further, there follows a neglect of attendance on 
the ministry of the word, vrhieli the L-ordhas appointed for the edi- 
fication of the church, and establishijig people in the faith of the 
truth he has revenied to us ihereiii. U'hen this once begins to be 
neglected, men Tvili soon turn sceptical and unconcerned about re* 



PRXNCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 



53 



And further, it is very observable, that many are strengthened 
in this neglect, by principles calculated for this purpose'; while the 
whole efficacy of preaching is made to depend, not on the blessing 
of Christ, whose institution it is, or the influences of his spirit, 
which he has promised for setting it home on the hearers for their 
conviction, conversion and edification — but on the abilities and ad- 
dress of the preachers. It is natural to conclude, that it is better 
to stay at home and read some book, than to go to hear a sermon, 
if the preacher is not of very uncommon abilities : Which is a prin- 
ciple avowed by many, and their practice suits their principles. 

Besides, which is the true spring of the fomer, 1 am afraid ignO' 
ranee of the nature ofrevealed religion, the design of its institutions, 
and all its principal concerns, is become more common than is usu- 
ally observed, even, amongst men ofhberal education and the best 
quality. And hence many of them entertain notions inconsistent 
with their own religion, at first out of ignorance, and afterwards 
think themselves in honor engaged to defend them, although de- 
structive to the religion they profess. 

Add to all this, that profanity in practice has, like a deluge, over- 
spread the lands. And wiiere this once takes place, love to sin ne- 
ver foils to engage men to those principles, which may countenance 
them in the courses they love, and design to cleave to. 

This seems plainly to be the state of matters with us at present. 
And we see but little appearance of any redress. The infectioit 
spreads, and many are daily carried off by it, both in England and 
Scotland. Though it must be owned that Scotland, as yet, is less 
tainted w ith that poison : but those of this nation have no reason to 
he secure, since many are infected, and more are in a forwardness 
to it than is commonly thought. 

Having given this short, but I conceive, true account of the 7'ise 
and growth of Deism, it now remains that we consider, wiiat these 
principles are which they maintain. The Deists, although they are 
not perfectly one among themselves, yet do agree in two things ; — 
1. They all re^^ect revealed religion, and plainly maintain that ail 
pretences to revelation are vain, cheat and imposture. 2. They 
all maintain that natural religion is sufficient to answer all the great 
ends of religion, and the only rule whereby all our religious practices 
<^re to be squared. The first of these assertions only tells what 
(heir religion is not, and expresses their opposition to all revelation, 
particularly to Christianity ; which has been worthily defended and 
asserted against all their objections by many of late, and I shall not 
much insist in adding to what they have written to such excellent 
purpose. The seco^rf tells us what their religion is; and it is this- 
we chiefly design in the following papers to debate with theni. — 
They have long been npon the q/fc??8j>e part, which is more easy; 
we design now to put them upon the defensive. 



54 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



They who call themselves Deists, although they thus far agree^ 
yet are not all of one sort. I find them by one of their own num- 
ber, classed into two sorts, mortal 9.iid iminorlal.^ 

The immortal are they wlio maintain afuiurc state. The mortal, 
they who toy one. It is with the^^/\s/ we are principally concern- 
ed ; yet I shall in the subsequent chapter offer a few things with re» 
spect to the mortal deists. And in what I have to say of them I 
shall be veiy short ; because I conceive, what has already been offer- 
ed in the introduction, against this sort of men, might almost su- 
persede any further discourse about them.^ 



CHAP. K. 

Mortal Deists who, and what Judgment to be made of them and 
their sentiments, 

THE mortal Deists, who also are called nominal Deists, deny- 
ing a future state, are, in effect, incre Alheists, This perhaps 
Fome may think a harsh judgment ; but yet it is such as the Deists 
themselves, m Iio are on the other side, v, ill allow. 

One who owts himself a Deist, thus expresses his mind — " We 
do believe, that there is an infinitely powerful, wise and good 
God, who superintends the actions of mankind, in order to retri- 
** bute to every one according to their deserts : Neither are we to 
*' boggle at this creed ; for if we do not stick to it, we ruin the foun- 
" dation of ail human happiness, and are in effect no better thaH 
" mere Atheists."t 

A further account of this sort of men we have given us by one, 
•whom any may judge capable enough for it, who considers his way 
of writino;, and the account he gives of himself. " I have observed 
" some," says he, " who pretend themselves Deists, that they are 
men of loose and sensual lives ; and I make no wonder that they 
dislike the christian doctrine' of self-denial, and the severe threat- 
^' enitfgs against wilful sinners. You may be sure they will not al- 
ledge this reason : But having read Spinoza and Hobbs, and be- 
ing taught to laugh at the story of Balaam's ass, and Sampson's 
locks, they proceed to ridicule the reahty of all miracles and reve- 
" lation. I have conversed with several of this temper, but could 
*' never get any of them serious enough to debate the reality of re- 
ligion — ^but a witty jest, and t'other glass, puts an end to all fm:- 



* Oracles of Reason, pag-e 99. 
t Letter to the Deists, page 125. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 55 



ther consideration."^ These are mere sceptics and practical 
Atheists, rather than real Deists. 

Now, it is to no purpose to debate with men of this temper. If 
they will Ksten to arguments, many have said enough, if not io 
convince them, (for I know it is not an easy matter to convince 
some men,) yet to stop their moutks • and therefore I shall not of- 
fer any arguments — only I shall lay down a few clear principles, 
and from them draw an inference or two, which will make it evident, 
what judgment we are to make of this sort of men. 

Tlie principles I take for incpntrovertible are these which follow : 
1. He deserves not the name of a man who acts not rationally ; 
knowing what he does, and to what end. 2. No action which con- 
tributes not, at least in appearance, to mmi's happiness is vvwthy 
of him. 3. The happiness of a present life, which is all that ilies© 
gentlemen allow, consists in the enjoym.ents of things agreeable to 
onr nature, and freedom from those that are noisome to it. 4, Man's 
nature is such, that his felicity depends not only on these things, 
which at present he has, or wants ; but likewise on what is pa^ft, 
and what is future. A prospect of the one, and a reflection on the 
other, according as they are more or less agreeable, exceedingly in- 
creases his pleasure or pain. 5. The hopes of obtaining hereafter 
the good we at present want, and of being freed from evils wc suffer 
by, mightily enhances the pleasure of what we possess, and allays 
the trouble that arises from incumbent evils. 6. So strong is the 
desire every one finds in himself of a continuation in being, as can- 
not choose but render the thoughts of annihilation very terrible 
and irksome. 7. The practice virtue as it is the most probable 
means of attaining/m'wre mess, if any such state be, so it Is 
that which tends most to perfect and advance rnan'^s nature ; and 
so must give the most solid and durable pleasure, even here in this 
life. 8, It is malicious to do what tends to the obstructing ano- 
ther's happiness, when it cannot further one^s own. Few men will 
question any of these, and if any do, it is not worth while to debate 
with him. Now from these we may see, 

1. It would contribute much to those gentlemen's j7r^?sf?zf/t^?i*ci7^ 
to believe, (be it true or false) that there is a future state of hap pi- 
7iess, since the hopes of immutable and endless bliss would be a no- 
table antidote against the uneasiness of mind that arises, not only 
from incumbent evils, but also from those we fear, and the incon- 
stancy of our short-lived enjoyments. 

2. The generality of mankind, especially where Christianity ob- 
tains, being already possessed of the prospect oifulure happiness, 
which supports tliera under present evils, arms them against the 
troublesome reflections on past troubles, and fears of the future ; 



* Growth of Deism,, pag-e •>■ 



16 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



and moreover animiites them in the practice of these actions where^ 
hj not only their own good, but that of the societies whereia they 
live, signally promoted ; all attempts to rob them of this hope are 
highly malicions, and import no less than a conspiracy against the 
happiness of mankind, and the good of the society wherein they 
live : And therefore we may say assuredly, that as those mortal 
])eisfs are much incommoded by their own opinion ; so their at- 
tempts for its propagation, must be looked on as proceeding from 
no .ffood design to the rest of mankind. 

Here perhaps some of thezn may say, that this opinion tends to 
iiberate a great part of mankind from the disquieting fears of future 
misery. 

To this I answer, 1. I believe it true, that their fears of fidure 
misery are uneasy to them ; or they have but little hope of future 
felicity. Their way of hving allows them none. But these fears 
proceed from consciousness of guilt, and are the genuine result of ac- 
tions, equally destructive to the actors, and the interest of the rest 
of mankind. 2. These fears have their use, and serve to deter 
from such evils as are ruining to the persons who commit them, and 
to human society. 3. While this opinion liberates a few of the 
worst of men, from these fears, which are a part of the just punish- 
ment of their villainies, and emboldens them to run on in those evils 
which ruin themselves and others, it dispirits and discourages the 
only useful part of mankind, by filling them with dismal thoughts of 
anrdhilaiiou, 4. Nor can all that the Deists are able to do, lib- 
erate themselves or mankind from those fears. The utmost that 
they can pretend, with any shew of reason, is, that we have not 
ground to believe such a state. Will this make us sure that there • 
is none ? But of this we have said enough in the introduction. •'. 

By what has been said it is evident, what judgment we are to ' 
make of this sort of Deists. Their lives, writings and death, shew , 
them to be mere Atheists. 

VanimiSy when first he appeared and wrote his Amphitheatrimi 
PrcvidenticE Diviitie, set out for such an one that believed a God. 
But at length spoke out plainly that he believed none, and was de- 
servedly burnt for Atheism at Thoulouse, April 9, 1619. He 
confessed there were twelve of them that parted in company from 
Naples to teach their doctrine in all the provinces of Europe.* 

Uriel Accosta wrote for this opinion, as himself tells us in his 
Examplar Viics Humane?, which is subjoined to himburg^s con- 
ference with Orohius the Jew.f His last action tells us what man 
he was. After he had made a vain attempt to shoot liis brother, he 
discharged a pistol into his own breast. This fell out about the. 

* See Great Geographical Dictionary. 

t Limburg-i Frse^tio and Bespona. Urileus Accost<s Libro, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 57 



twentieth or thirtieth year of the last century. So they live, and 
so they die. 

Were this our design, or if we saw any need of it, we might give 
such an account of the principles, practices, and tragical exits of 
not a few of this sort of persons, as would be sufficient to deter the 
sober from following them. But what has been said is sufficient to 
discover the destructive tendency of their prime opinion. And 
further we shall not concern ourselves with them, but go on to 
that which is mainly intended in this disc<Hirse. 



CHAP. HI, 

Wherein the controversy betwixt us and the Immortal Deists is stated 

and cleared. 

THE immortal Deists who own a future state, are the only 
persons with whom it is worth while to dispute this point about the 
sufficiency of natural religion. Before we offer any arguments on 
this head, it is necessary we state the question clearly ; and it ifs 
the more necessary, that none of the Deists have had the courage 
or honesty to do it. And here in the entry we shall lay down some 
things, which we think are not to be controverted on this occasion. 
And we shall, after these concessions are made, inquire what still 
remains in debate. 

1, We look on it as certain, that all the world, in all ages, hath 
been possessed of some notion of a God, of some power above 
them, on whom, in more or less, they did depend ; and to whom 
on this account some respect is due. This Heathens have observ- 
ed. Cicero, amongst others, hath long since told us, " That 

there is no nation so barbarous that owns not some God, that has 

not some anticipations or impressions from nature, of a God."^ 
Nor is this any more, than what we are told, Rom. i. 19, 20, &c. 
that the Gentiles have some notions of truth concerning God, which 
they hold in unrighteousness ; that God, partly by erecting a tri- 
bunal in their own breasts, which they cannot decline, though they 
never so much would, and partly by presenting to their eyes those 
visible works that bear a lively impress of his invisible power and 
Godhead, hath, as it were, forced upon them the knowledge of some 
part of that, which the apostle calls yv&tIv rtt s a, or that which 
may be known of God. Whence they all in some measure knem 
God, though they glorified him not as God, 

* Cicero d§ Natura Deorum, Lib. 1, 



8 



^3 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



The stones some have told us of nations that have no notion of & 
God, upon search are found false. And for some lewd persons, 
T7ho hare pretended to a settled persuasion, they are not to be cre- 
dited. We have sufficient reason to look on them as liars, or at 
least, not admit them witnesses in this case. 

2. I do think that the knowledge of some of the more obvioui 
laws of nature, and their obligation, hath imiversally obtained.*— 
The Gentiles, all of them, do hTf nature those things^ that is, the 
material part of those duties, which the law of nature enjoins, 7vhich 
shews the work of the lan\ or some part of it at least, to he written 
m their heaiis, since thev do some things it enjoins. I do not 
think that this writing of the law imports innate ideas, or innate 
actual knowledge, which Mr. Locke hath been at so much pains to 
disprove,t >^ith what success I inquire not now. Some think, that 
while he grants the self-evidence of a natural propensitij of our 
thoughts toward some notions, which others call innate, he grants 
all that the more judicious intend by that expression. Others 
think that Mr. Locke's arguments conclude only the improbability 
of innate ideas, and that they are to be rejected, rather for want of 
evidence for them, than for the strength of what is said against 
them-J But whatever there is as to this, neither the apostle's 
scope nor i^ ords oblige us to maintain them. What is intended 
may be reduced to tw o assertions, viz. That men are bom with 
such faculties, which cannot, after they are capable of exercising 
them, but admit the obligation and binding force of som^e, at least, 
of the laws of nature, when they are fairly offered to their thoughts; 
and, that man is so stated, that he cannot miss occasions of think- 
ing of, or coming to the knowledge of those laws of nature. 

Homines nasci cognitione aliqua T)ei instructos, hand dicimus : 
" NuUam omnino habent, sed vi cognoscendi dicimus; neque ita 

naturaliter cognoscunt atque sentiunt, iasitam potentiam Deura 

cognoscendi, ad cultum ejus aliquomodo praestandum, stimulan- 
" tem, sponte se in adultis rationis compolibus, non minus certo et 
" necessario quam ipsum ratiocinari, exerturam, unumquemque 
" retinere, ratio nulla est eur opinemur cum sentiamus, " says the 
learned Dr. Owen.jj 



* I inquire not whether they were acquainted ■vritk the proper and trus 
gi'ounds of the oblig-ation of those laws they owTied obligatory, 
f Lccke's Essav on Human Understanding-, Book 1, Ch 4, § 11. 
t Becconsall of Xat. Relig". Ch. 6. § 1, 2^ 

11 Theologumen. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Par. 2. — " We do not say that men are 
iDom with any actual knowledg-e of God, as they have no knowledg-e at all 
when ttiey are bom ; but we say that tliey are born with a capacity of know- 
ing" him, and that they do not so naturally know as they feel this implanted 
*' capacity of knowing- God, which stirs them up to worship him in some man- 
** ner. And that this capacity will no less naturally and spontaneously exert 
** itself in all adults that are possessed of reason, than that of reasoning itself, 
there is no reason why we shouid deliver as an opinion, a> we f<?el it to be 
" the case.'* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 59 



3. It is unquestionable, and has been sufficiently attested by the 
nations, and even by some of the worst of them, that man has a 
conscience, that sometimes drags the greatest and most obstinate of- 
fenders to its tribunal, in their own breasts, accuses them, con- 
demns them, and in some sort executes the sentence against them, 
for their counteracting known duty, how little soever they know* 
A Heathen poet could say, 

Prima est hcBc ultio, quod se 

JudicCf nemo nocens absolvitur, improba qimmvis 
Gratia fatlacis preetoris vicerit iirnam.^ 

4. We own that those laws of nature, which are of absolute ne- 
cessity to the support of government and order in the world, and 
the maintenance of human society, are, in a good measure, knowa- 
ble by the light of nature, and have been generally known. 

5. We willingly admit that, what by tradition, and what by the 
improvement of nature^s light, many of the wiser Heathens have 
come to know, and express many things excellently, as to the na- 
ture of God, man's duty, the corruption of nature, a future state, 
&c. and some of them have lived nearer up to the knowledge that 
they had than others : For which they are highly to be commond- 
ed, and I da not grudge them their praise. 

6. I look on it as certain, that the light of nature, had it been 
duly improven, might have carried them in these things,^ and others 
©f the like nature, further than ever any went. 

But after all these things are granted, the question concerning 
the sufficiency of natural religion, remains untouched. 

For clearing this, it is further to be observed, that, when we 
speak of the sufficiency of natural religion, or those notices cf God, 
and the way of worshipping him, which are attainable by the mere 
light of nature, without revelation, we consider it asaw^can in order 
to some end. For by sufficiency is meant, that aptitude of a mean 
for compassing some end, that infers a necessary connection betwixt 
the due use, that is, such an use of the mean, as the person to whom 
it is said to be sifficieniyk capable to make of it, and the attain- 
ment of the end. 

Now natural religion, under this consideration, may be asserted 
sufficient or not, according as it is looked at with respect to one 
end, or another : For it is useful to several purposes, and has a re- 
spect to several ends. 

1. It maybe considered with respect to human society, upon 
which religion has a considerable influence. " There could never 



* ** This is the first part of the punishrnent, that every guilty person is con- 
** demned by himself, although wieked interest should have overcome ths in- 
tegrity of his judge." 



AN INGUIKY INTO THE 



possibly be any government settled amongst Atheists, or those 
who pay no respect to a Deity. Remove God on*ce out of Hea- 
ven, and there will never be any gods upon earth. If man's na* 
ture had not something of subjection in it to a Supreme Being 
above him, and inherent principles obliging him how to behave 
himself toward God, and toward the rest of the world, govern- 
** ment could have never been introduced, nor thought of. Not 
can there be the least mutual security between governors and 
^ governed, where no God is admitted. For it is an acknowledging 
of God, in his supreme judgment over the world, that is the 
ground of an oath; and upon which the validity of all human en- 
*' gagements do depend," says an excellent person.* And the 
famed Cicero expresses himself very fully to the same purpose* 
Speaking of religion and piety, he says — Quibus sublatis, pertur* 
hatio vitae sequitur, Sr magna confusioy atque hand scio, an pietate 
adversiis Deos sublata, fides etiam, ^ societas huniani generis, <§• 
nna excellentissima virtu, jusfitia tollatur,f If the qnestion con- 
cerned this end, we might own natural religion some way sufficient 
to be a foundation for human society, and some order and govern- 
snent in the world : For it is in fact evident, that where revelation 
has been wanting, there have been several well-formed governments. 
•Though still it must be said, that they were obliged to tradition for 
many things that v/ere of use, and to have recourse to pretended re- 
velation, where the real was wanting. J Which shews revelatioii 
necessary, if not to the being, yet to the rvell-being of society, 

2. Natural religion may be considered in its subserviency to God's 
moral government of the world ; and with respect to this, it has 
several considerable uses, that I cannot enter upon the detail of. It 
is the measure of God's judicial proceedings, with respect to those 
of mankind who want revelation ; and as to this, there is one thing 
that is usually observed, that it is sufficient to justify God in pun^ 
ishing sinners. That God sometimes, even here in time, punishes, 
offenders, and, by the forebodings of their consciences, gives them 
dreadful presages of a progress in his severity against them, after 
this life, cannot well be denied. Now certainly there must be 
some measure, whereby God proceeds in this matter. Where there 
is no law, there is no transgression* Punishments cannot be in- 
flicted, but for the transgression, and according to the tenor of a law. 
And this law, if it is holy , just, and good in its precepts, and equal 

* See Ch, Wolselcy's Unreas. of Atheism, pag-e 152, 8cc. 

f DeNatura Deorum, Lib. 1. mihi. pag-e 5. — '* Which being" taken away, a 

great disorder and confusion in life must follow ; and I know not whether, 
** after piety to the God's is taken avv aVj truth and the social affections, and 

justice, the most excellent of the virtues, would not at the same time be 
** taken away." 

4 See Amyrald on Reli^. Part 2- Cap. 8. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 61 



in its sanction, is not only the measure whereby the governor pro- 
ceeds in punishing offenders ; but that which justifies him in the 
punishment of them. It is needless to speak of the grant o( rewards 
in this case ; because with respect to them, not only justice but 
grace and hovnty have place, which are not restricted to any such 
nice measures, in the dispensation of favours, as justice is in the 
execution of punishments. Now, if natural religion is considered 
with respect to this end, we say it is sufficient to justify God, and 
fully clear him from any imputation of injustice or cruelty, whatever 
punishments he may, either in time or after time, inflict upon man- 
kind who want revelation. There are none of them come to age, 
who — 1. Have not fallen short of knowing many duties, which they 
might have knovv^n. 2. Who have not omitted many duties, which 
they knew themselves obliged to. And 3. Who have not done 
what they knew they ought not to have done, and might have for- 
born. If these three are made out, as no doubt they may be against 
all men, I do not see what reason any will have to implead God ei- 
ther of hardship or injustice. 

There are I know, who think it very hard, that those natural no- 
tices of God and religion should be sufficient to justify God in ad- 
judging those, who counteract them, to future and eternal punish' 
ments, while yet such an attendance to, and compliance with them 
as men are capable of, in their present circumstances, is not suffix 
cient to entitle us to eternal rewards. 

But if, in this matter, any injustice is charged upon God, who 
shall manage the plea ? Shall they who transgress and contravene 
those notices do it ? But what injustice meet they with, if they are 
condemned for not knowing what they might have known ? not doing 
what they were obliged to do, and were able to do ? and for doing 
what they might and should have forborn ? If all these may be laid 
to their charge, though there were no more, what have they to say 
for themselves, or against God ? They surely have no reason to 
complain. If any have reason to complain, it must be they who 
have walked up to the natural notices of God. But v/Lere is there 
any such ? We may spare our vindication till such an one be found. 
Nor is it easy to prove that man's obedience though perfect, must 
necessarily entitle to eternal felicity. And he who shall undertake 
to implead God of injustice upon the account of such a sentence, as 
that we now speak of, will not find it easy to make good his charge. 

Were the difficulty thus moulded, that it is hard to pretend that 
those natural notices of God are sufficient to justify God in con- 
demning the transgressors of them to future punishments, while 
punctual compliance with them is not sufficient to save those, who 
yield this obedience, from those punishments, which the contra- 
veners are liable to for their transgression— though it were thus 
moulded, it would be a hard task to make good such a charge. Bat 



e2 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

4 

I am not concerned in it ; nor are any, who judge the personf»v 
who have gone farthest in this compliance, liable upon other ac- 
counts ; because they still own their compliance so far available to 
them, as to save them from those degrees of wrath, which deeper 
guilt would have inferred. 

3. Other ends there are, with respect to which natural religion 
may be considered, which I shall pass without naming, and shall 
only make mention of that which we are concerned in, and is aimed 
at in the present controversy, and that is, the future happiness of 
man in the enjoyment of God, This certainly is the supreme and 
vltimate end of religion with respect to man himself For that the 
glory of God is the chief end absolutely^ and must, in all respect, 
have the preference, I place beyond del3ate. 

Now it is as to this end, that the question about the sufficiency of 
natural religion is principally moved. And the question, in short, 
amounts to this, whether the notices of God and religion, which all 
men by the light of nature have, or at least by the mere improve- 
ment of their natural abilities without revelation, may have, are 
{sufficient to direct them in the way to eternal blessedness, satisfy 
them that such a state is attainable, and point out the way how it is 
to be attained ; and whether by that practical compliance with 
those notices, which man in his present state is capable of, he may 
certainly attain to acceptance with God, please him, and obtain 
this eternal happiness in the enjoyment of him ? The Deists are for 
the affirmative, as we shall afterwards make appear, when we con- 
sider their opinions more particularly . 

But before we proceed to offer arguments, it will be needful to 
branch this question into several particulars that are included in it, 
that we may the better conceive of, and take up the import of it,, 
and how much is included and wrapt up in this assertion. The 
question which we have proposed in general, may be turned inta 
these five subordinate queries : 

1. Whether, by the mere light of nature, we can discover an 
eternal state of happiness, and know that this is attainable ? Unless 
this is done, nothing in matters of religion is done. It is impossible 
that nature*s light can give any directions as to the means of at- 
taining future happiness, if it cannot satisfy us that there is such 
a state. 

2. Whether men, left to the conduct of the mere light of nature, 
can certainly discover and find out the way of attaining it ? that is, 
whether, by the light of nature, we can know and find out all that is 
required of us, in the way of duty, in order to our eternal felicity ? 
If the affirmative is chosen, it must be made appear by nature** 
h'ght, what duties are absolutely necessary to this purpose ; that 
those which are prescribed are indeed duties ; and that they are all 
that are necessary in order to the attainment of the end, if they ares 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. ^3 



'Complied withal. Although we should have it never so clearljr 
made out, that there is a future state of happiness, yet if we are left 
at an utter loss as to the means of attaining it, we are no better for 
the discovery, 

3. Whether nature's light gives such a full and certain discovery 
of both these as the case seems to require ? Considering what a case 
man at present is in, to hope for an eternity of happiness, is to look ve- 
ry high : And any man, who in his present circumstances, shall enter- 
tain such an expectation, on mere surmises, suspicions and may-bees, 
may be reproached by the world, and his own heart, as a fool. To 
keep a man up in the steady impression, and expectation of so great 
things, conjectures, suppositions, probabilities, and confused gene- 
ral hints, are not sufficient. Again, there are huge difficulties to be 
surmounted in the way to this blessedness, which are obvious and 
certain. Sensible losses are sometimes to be sustained, sensible 
pains to be undergone, and sensible dangers to be looked in the 
face. Now the question is, whether is there such a clear and cer- 
tain knowledge of these attainable, as the importance of the case, 
the stress that is to be laid on them, requires ? Certain it is, it 
will not be such notices as most please themselves with, that wiH 
be able to answer this end. 

4. Whether the evidence of the attainableness of a future state 
of happiness, and of the way to it, is such as suits the capacities of 
all concerned ? Every man has a concernment in this matter. 
The Deists inquire after a religion that is able to save all, whereof 
every man, if he but please, may have the eternal advantage. Now 
then the question is, whether the case is so stated, as that every 
man, who is in earnest, if he has but the.use of reason, however 
shallow his capacity is, how great soever his inevitable entangle- 
ments and hinderances from close application are, may attain to 
this certainty about this end, and the way to it ? For it must be al- 
lowed that there is a vast difference among men as to capacity. 
Men are no more of one measure in point of the reach of one, which 
another nlay easily attain to. Now, may as much be certainly 
known by the meanest capacity as is necessary for him to know ? 
Again, all men have not alike leisure. That may be impossible to 
me, if I am a poor man, obliged to work hard to earn my own and 
family's bread, which would not be so if I had leisure and opportu- 
nity to follow my studies. Now, if these discoveries, both as to 
their truth, certainty and suitableness, are not such as the meanest, 
notwithstanding any inevitable hinderances he may be under, may 
reach, they will not answer the end. 

5. Whether, supposing all the former, every man, however sur- 
rounded with temptations, and inveigled with corrupt inclinations^ 
or other hinderances, which he cannot evite, is yet able, without 
any supply of supernatural strength, to comply so far with all ihos* 



64 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



duties, as is absolutely needful in order to obtain this eternal hap- 
piness ? Whatever our knowledge is, we are not the better for it, 
unless we are able to yield a practical compliance. 

The Deists have the affirmative of all these questions to make 
good. How they acquit themselves in this, we shall see after- 
wards. The task, as any one may see, is sufficiently difficult. 
And I do not know, that any one of them who has yet wrote, hath 
given any evidence that they understood the state of the question 
in its full extent. They huddle it up in the dark, that the weak- 
ness of their proof may not appear. And perhaps they are not 
willing to apply their thoughts so closely to the subject, as is re- 
quisite, in order to take up the true state of the controversy. 

The m.ore remiss and careless they have been this way, we had 
so much the more to do to state the question truly betwixt us and 
them. And having done this, we shall next proceed to make good 
our part of it. 

A negative is not easily proven, which puts us at some loss. It 
has been denied that it can in some cases be proven. But we hope, 
in this case, we are able to offer such reasons as will justify us in 
holding the negative in this debate. And we shall see next whe- 
ther they are able to demonstrate the affirmative, and offer as good 
reasons for it, as we shall give against it. And it is but reasonable 
they should offer better, in a matter of so great concern. 



CHAP. IV. 

Pronng the insufficiency of Natural Religion, from the insuffi- 
ciency of its discoveries of a Deity. 

THOUGH it belongs to the asserters of the sufficiency of natU' 
ral religion, to justify by argument their assertion, and we are upon 
the negative, might supersede any further debate until such time, 
as we see how they can acquit themselves here ; yet truth, not 
triumph, being the design of our engaging in the contest, that none 
may think we are without reason in our denial, and that we put 
them upon the proof, only to difficult them, we shall now by some 
arguments endeavor to evince the insufficiency of natural religion. 

The first argument I shall improve to this purpose is deduced 
ivnTCL Xhe insufficiency of those discQVcries,\y\\\iih.\\\G light of na^ 
iiire is abTe to make of God. Nothing is more plain than this, that 
religion is founded upon the knoniedge of the Deity ; and that our 
regard for him will be answerable to the knowledge we have of him. 

That religion, therefore, which is defective here, is lame with a 
witness : And if natm^e's light cannot offord such notices of the De- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 65 



ity, as are sufficient or necessary to beget and maintain religion 
amongst men, then it can never with any rational man be allowed 
sufficient to direct men in religion. 

Now, for clearing this argument, several things are to be dis- 
cussed. And first of all, it is requisite, that we state such a no- 
tion of religion in general, as maybe allowed to pass with all, who 
are, or can reasonably be supposed competent judges in such mat- 
ters. Religion then, in general, may be justly said to import that 
veneration, respect or regard, which is due from the rational crea^ 
ture in his whole course or life, to the supreme super-eminently ear* 
tellent Being, his Creator, Preserver, Lord or Governor and Bc" 
nefactor. 

The actions of the rational creature, which may come under the 
Dotion of religion, areof two sorts : some of them do directly, pro- 
perly and immediately import a regard or respect to God as their 
end; which they are immediately and properly designed to express. 
Such acts are called acts of worship. And religion is more emi- 
nently thought to consist in these, and that not without reason. 
Yea, by some it is wholly, and against all reason, confined to them, 
and circumscribed within those bounds. Again, there are other ac- 
tions, which, though they have other more proper, direct and im- 
mediate ends, on account whereof they undergo various denomi- 
nations, yet they also are, or may be, and certainly should be sub- 
ordinate to that, which, though it is not the proper, most immediate, 
and distinguishing end of these actions, yet is the common and ulti- 
mate end, at which all a man's actions should be levelled. Now all 
the actions of a rational creature, which are of this last sort, as re- 
ferred to a Deity, and importing somewhat of religion, may be 
termed acts of moral obedience. In so far they are religious, and 
come within the compass of our consideration, as they express any 
respect to God. And they express and import regard to God, in 
as far as they can quadrate with the moral law, which is the instru- 
ment of God's moral government of the world ; and therefore if 
they are right and agreeable to this rule, they may be termed acts 
of moral obedience, to distinguish them from these acts, which are 
solely and more strictly religious, and are called acts of worship. 

But to speak somewhat more particularly of this regard that is due 
to God, it is as evident as any thing can, that it must be, 

1 . In its formal nature different from that respect, which we 
may allowably pay to any creature ; that is, it must be given on ac- 
counts no way common to him with any of the creatures, but on ac- 
count of those distinguishing excellencies, which are his incoranlu- 
nicable glory. None can reasonably deny this, since it must be al- 
lowed by all, that religious respect due to God, and civil respect due 
to creatures ai^e different, and must be principally differenced by 



9 



66 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



the grounds whereon the respect to the one or other is paid. Now 
the grounds whereon this homage is due unto the Deity, are the su- 
peremiiieiit, nay, infinite excellency of his nature and "perfections, 
and his indisputably supreme, absolute and independent sovereignty 
over all his creatures, which stands eternally firm and unshaken, aa 
being supported by that suj^o -emmeiif?/ o/* his excelhncy^ his crea- 
tioiu preservation, and benefits. Now, none of these grounds are, 
in any degree, conmiunicable to the creatures ; and so to talk of a 
religious worship due to the creature, is to speak nonsense with a 
"witness. 

2. This veneration we give to God must be intensively, or as ta 
degree, not only superior to that which we give to any creature, but 
eyen siipreine. It is not enough, that we love God on accounts pe-. 
culiarto him ; bnt we must love him with a love superior to that 
"H'hich we give any creature, aiKl answerable to those accounts, 
whereon we do love him. And the like rnay be said as to other in- 
stances. There is no need of insisting in the proof of this. Would 
our king be pleased, if we paid him no more respect than we do his 
servant ? Is -the distance betwixt Ged and the highest creature less 
considerable, than that which is bet^ ixt a king and his meanest sub- 
ject ? Nay, is it not infinitely more ? How can it then reasonaWy 
be expected that the same degree of respect we gay to the crea- 
tures, will find acceptance, or answer the duty we owe to the gk>ri- 
ous and ever-blessed Lord God ? 

. 3. This veneration must be txtensmely superior to that paid to 
any of the creatures. Our I'egard to the Deity must not be con- 
lined to one sort of our actions, (those, for instance, which are re- 
hgious in a strict sense, or more plai nly-s ads of worship ,•) but it 
must run thrc-agh every action of eur life, inward and outward. 
Every action is a dependent of God's, and owes him homage. It 
is otherwise w ith men ; for to one sort of men, we may owe respect, 
m one sort of eur actions, and owe them none in another. A child, 
hi filial duties, ewes his father respect ; as a subject, he owes his 
fioveiDor reverenc-e ; and so cf other instances of a like nature : 
But to no one creature is he, in ail respects, subject, or obliged by 
every action to express any regard. And the reason is plain ; he is 
subject to none of them in all respects wherein he is capable of 
aclii^^];. But with rcL-spect to God, the matteris quite otherwise : what- 
ever he has is from God, ?nd to him he is in all respects subject, on 
him i\e every way depend?. The power your f:iilier has over you, 
iie derives from God, and it 'is God that binds the duties you are to 
pay your father on you; and therefore Qxid is to be owned 3iS supreme^ 
oven iu every act of duty that you perform, to your father, your 
king, your neighbour, or yourself : for j on are in all respects AiS. 
Willie you are subordinate on various accounts to others, yet still 
God is in every regard supreme and sover^^.gn Lord and disposer of 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN, DEISTS. G7 



you and your actions, and therefore you owe him a reirard in every 
thing you think, speak or do. I think this plain enoits;Iu 

I hope this account of the nature of religion in general, will not 
be found liable to any considerable exceptions, it being; no. other 
than such as the first view of the nature of the thing offers to any 
that seriously considers it. And from this account it is evident, 
that religion is founded on the hiowledgre of a Deity. A blind 
devotion that is l}egot and maintained, either by profound ignorance 
of God^ or confused notions of him, answers neither man's nature, 
which is rational, and requires that he proceed in all his actions, es- 
pecially those of most moment, rationally, that is, with knowledge 
and willingness ; nor will it obtain acceptance, as that which answers 
his duty, whereby he is obliged to serve God with the best and in 
the highest way that his faculties admit him. The contrary sup- 
position of Papists is a scandalous reproach to the nature, both of 
God and man ; and an engine suited only unto the selfish design of 
the villainous priests, who, that they may have the conduct of men's 
souls, and so the management of their estates, have endeavored to 
hood-wink man, and make him brutish, where he should be n ^ t 
rational ; and that they may have the foes/, they make him present 
God with trie blind and the lame, which his soul abhors. 

This, being, in general, clear, that the knowledge of God is the 
foundation of all acceptable religion, it is now proper to inquire 
what discoveries of God are requisite to bring man to such a religion, 
as has been above described, and to keep him up in the practice of 
it. Now if we look seriously into this matter, I think we m.ay lay 
down the following position, as clear beyond rational contradic- 
tion. 

• 1. That a particular kmniedge of God is requisite to this pur- 
pose, to beget and maintain this reverence for the Deity, which is 
his undoubted due. It is not enough that we have some general 
notions, however extensive. To conceive of God in the general, 
that he is the best and greatest of beings, optimus maximus, is not 
enough. The reason is obvious : we must have in every sort of 
actions, nay, in each particular action, that knowledge which may 
influence and guide us to that respect, Avhich is due to him, in that 
sort of actions, or that particular one ; but this general notion having 
no more respect to one than another, will not do. It directs us no 
more in one than another, unless the particulars that arc compre- 
hended under that general be explained to, and understood by the 
actor. 

2. That knowledge, which will answer the end, must be large 
and comprehensive. This religion is not to be confined to one 
particular sort of actions, but to run through all, and therefore 
there must be a knowledge, not merely of one or twa perfections of 
the divine nature, but of all : not simply, as If God were to be com- 



68 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



prehended, but of those perfections and prerogatives of God, 
which require our regard in our particular actions, in so far as they 
are the ground of our veneration. As for instance, to engage me 
to trust God, I must know his power y his care and knowledge : to 
engage me to pray to him, I must be persuaded of his knowledge, 
of his willingness and potver to assist me in the suit I put up ; to 
engage me to pay him obedience^ I must know his authority, the 
laws he has stamped it on, and that he has fixed a law to these 
particular actions, either more g-e/iera/ or more special. Whence 
it being evident, that different actions require different views of 
God in order to their regulation ; and all a man's actions being un- 
der rule, there must be a large and comprehensive knowledge of 
God to guide him in his whole course. 

3» It being no less than an universal religionihaX is to be sought 
after, the discoveries of God wherein it must be founded, must be 
plain to the capacities of all mankind ; and that both as to the 
truth of these discoveries and their use. It is certain tliat all men 
are no more of the same measure of understanding than they are in 
s' ture. However important the discovery is, if it is above my 
reach, it is all one to me as if it were not discovered at all. To 
tell me of such a thing, but it is in the clouds, is to amuse and not 
instruct me. There may indeed, supposing an universal religion, 
be somewhat of difference as to knowledge allowed, as to some of 
the concernments of this religion, to persons of more capacity and 
industry, and whahave more time ; but if it is calculated for the 
good of all mankind, the discoveries must be suclv as all who are 
concerned may reach, as to atl its essentials ; for the meanest have 
as much concernment in them as the greatest. 

4. It is most evident, that these discoveries must be certain, or 
come recommended by such evidence as may be convincing and 
satisfying to every mind. Conjectured discoveries, or surmises of 
these things, built upon airy and subtile speculations, are not firm 
•enough to establish such a persuasion of truth in- the soul, as may 
be able to influence this universal regard, over the belly of the 
strongest in v/itrd bias and outward rubs. 

5. The evidence of these things must be abiding ; such as may 
be able to keep np the soul in a constant adherence to duty. It 
is not one day that man is to obey, but always ; and therefore 
these discoverieg must lie so open to the m.ind at all times, as that 
the soul may by them be constantly kept up in its adherence to 
duty. If from any external or internal cause, there may arise 
such obstructions as may for one day keep man from those discov- 
eries, or the advantage of them ; he may ruin, nay, must ruin him- 
self by failing in ^ his duty ; or at least, if be . is not mined, he is 
laid open to it^ 



PRINCIPLEfe' OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 69 



6/ Upon the whole it appears, that to found natural religion, or 
to introduce and maintain among men that regard which is due to 
the Deity, there is requisite such a large., comprehensive, certain^ 
plain^ and abiding disco verT/, as, may have sufficient force lo infiu- 
ence to a compliance ivith his didy in all instances. 

Thus far matters seem to be carried on with sufficient evitlence. 
We are now come to that which seems to be the principal hinge, 
whereon the wliole controversy about the sufficiency of natural re- 
ligion turns ; in so far, at least, as it is to be determined by this 
argument. Now this is, whether nature*s light can indeed aifoi-d 
such diircoveries of God, as are evinced to be necessary for the 
support of religion? If it cannot, then it is found insiiffixient ; if it 
can, then natural religion is thus far acquitted from the charge laid 
against it. Now, to attempt the decision of this question success- 
fully, it is necessary that we state it right. It is not then the ques- 
tion, whether in nature there is sufficient objective light ? as the 
schools barbarously speak ; that is, whether in the works of crea- 
tion and providence, which lie open to our view, or arc the object 
of our contemplation, there are such prints of God, which, if they 
were all fully understood by us, are sufficient to this purpose ? for 
the question is not concerning the works of God without us, but 
concerning us. The plain question is this, " whether man can, 
from those works of God alone, without the help of revelation, ob- 
tain such a knowledge of God, as is sufficient to the purpose men- 
tioned.*' 

Now the question being concerning our power, or rather the f .r- 
tentoi ourporuer, I know but four ways that can be tliought upon to 
come to a point about it : Either, 

1. By divine revelation we may be informed what nature^ s light 
unassisted can do. We would willingly put the matter on this is- 
sue : Our adversaries will not ; so we must leave it. Or, 

2. Some apprehend that the way to decide this, is, to take our 
measures from the nature of God ; and to inquire, when God was to 
make or did frame man, with what jooryers it was proper for him \o 
endue him ? or, with what exte^xt of power, considering the infinite 
wisdom, goodness and power of the Creator ? This way the Deists 
would go. But 1. It seems a little presumptuous for us to pre- 
Sci'lhe, or measure what was fit for God to do, by what appears to 
us fit to have been done. For when we have soared as high as 
we can, we must fall down again ; for God's counsels are too deep 
for us, and if we should think this or that fit for God, yet he hi- 
ving a more full view of thing;?, may think quite the contrary ; and 
thus all that we can come to here in this way, is but a weak and 
presumptuous conjecture. 2. If in fact, what v/e think fit, or con- 
jecture fit for God to have done, it be evident that God hos not 
done ; that he has given no smhpoiver or extent of it^ we judge 



70 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



necessary, our judgment is not only weakly founded, but plainly- 
false ; yea, and impious to boot : For if God has done otherwise, 
it is certain that the way which we prescribed was not best ; nor can 
we hold by our own apprehension^ whatever shews it is built on, 
without an implicit charge of folly again&t God. 8. Whatever we 
may pretend the wisdom of God requires to be done for or given to 
man, if by no divine act there is any evidence that he has so done, 
though there be no proof of his having done the contrary, yet it 
weakens the evidence of all we can saj, if the thing is such in its 
nature,, as would be known by experience, if existent ; because, in 
that case, the whole stress of our argument leans upon a supposi- 
tion that we are capable of j iidging of the wisdom of God, while it 
is certain, we have not all those circumstances under our view, 
which may make it really fit to act this way rather than that, or 
that way rather than this, which on the other hand he certainly 
has. This way then we cannot decide the case. 

3. We may immediately perhaps judge of the extent of man^s 
nhility in this sort, by a direct inquiry irdo the nature of the poncrs. 
But this way rs as uncertain as the former ; for there is no agree- 
ment amongst the most judicious about the nadnre of those powers, 
without endless controversies. And all that are really judicious 
own such darkness in this matter, that will not allow tliem to pretend 
themselves capable to decide the question this way. It is little we 
knov/of the naiiirej or po7vers, qv actings o? spirits: Nor do I be- 
lieve that ever any person that understands, will pretend to decide,, 
the controversy this way. Wherefore, 

4. We must, upon the whole, give over the business, or inquire 
into the extent of our ability by experience ; and judge what man 
can do by what he has done. If not one has made sufficient dis- 
coveries of God, it is rash to say that any one can by the mere 
light of nature make them : More especially it vrill appear so, if we 
consider, that all mankind must be pretended equally capable of 
these discoveries, which concern their own practice. It is strange 
to pretend that all are capable of doing that which none has done. 
Further, these discoverie.? are not of that sort that may be f^ufficient 
Id answer their end, if one in one age shall make some steps towards 
them, and another afterwards improve them : But it is necessary 
that every one, in every age, and at every period of his life, have 
exact acquaintance with them, in so far as is needful to regulate his 
practice in tliat period of his life. When I am in one station, I 
must either fail In the respect due to God, and so lay myself open 
to justice, or I must know as much of God, as is requisite to influ- 
ence a due regani in that station, or that part of my life that now 
Tuns ; and therefore an universal defect as to those discoveries 
must inevitably overthrow the pretended ability of m^an to make 
these discoveries, and coassquently the sufficiency of nature's 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 71 



Kgbt to beget or maintain religion, which cannot be supported with- 
out them. 

Now for clearing this matter, it is to be considered, that what 
we are upon is a mgative, and it belongs to those who affirm' wct?i 
able to make such discoveries of God, to show by whom and where; 
these discoveries have been made, or to produce those notices of 
God that are built on the mere light of nature^ that are siifpxient to 
this purpose. Now, none of them dare pretend this has been done, 
cr, at least, shew who has done it, or make the attempt them- 
selves ; and therefore we might take it as confessed, that it is not 
to be done. 

But if it is still pretended, that this has been done, though with- 
out telling us by whom^ or pointing to these discoveries where we 
may find them : 

I answer, How shall we know this T May we know it by the ef- 
fects of it in the lives of those who either have had no other light 
save that of nature, as it was with the philosophers of old before 
Christ, or who own no other save that of nature, as the Deists and 
others who re jected Christianity ? Truly, if we judge by this rule, 
we are sure the negative will be much confirmed ? For it is plain 
that those notions of a God, which were entertained by the philo- 
sophers of old, influenced none of them to glorify him as God. 
The vulgar Heathens were void of any respect to the true God ; 
nay, by the whole of their practice betrayed the profoundest ig- 
norance, and most contemptuous disregard of him. The philoso- 
phers, not one of them excepted, whatever not ions they had of a 
Deity, and whatever length some of them went in morality, upon, 
other inducements, yet shewed nothing like to that peculiar, high 
and extensive respect to the one true God which we now inquire after. 
We may bid a defiance to the Deists, to shew us any thing like it in 
the practice even of a Socrates, a Plato, a Seneca, or any others 
of them. Their virtue was plainly built upon another bottom. It 
has been judiciously observed by one of late, that there was httle 
notice taken of God in their ethicks ; and I may add, as little re- 
gard in their practice. Nor are the lives of our Deists, or others 
since, any better proof of the sufficiency of the natural notices of 
God; to beget and support a due veneration for him. 
. If the Deists decline this trial of the sufficiency of those disco- 
teries of a God, by their influence upon practice, then v.e must 
look at them in themselves. And here we must have recourse, ei- 
ther to those who had no acquaintance with the scripture revela- 
tion ; or to tliose who have given us accounts of God amongst our- 
selves ; w^ho tliough they own not the scriptures to be from God, 
yet have had acces-s to them, for the improvement of their own 
riotions ebout God, The last sort mijiht be cast, as incompetent 
witaesries in this case, upon very revelant grouiids. Bui we shall 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



give our enemies all that they can desire, even as to the advantage 
thev may have this way, that they may see our cause is not wanting 
in evidence and certain^. 

We begin then with those who have been left to the mere light 
of 7iature, to spell out the letters of God's name, from the works 

creation xad providence, without any acquaintance with the more 
plain scripture account of God. Now whtit we have to say as to 
them, we shall comprize in a few observations. 

1. As for the attainments of the vulgar Heathens, there is no 
place for judging of them otherwise than by ihek practice* Thejr 
have consigned nothing ta writing, and so we have no other way to 
guess at their opinions in matters of religion, but either by their 
practice, or by ascribing to them the principles of those, who in 
their respective countries, had the disposal of these matters. 
"Whichsoever way we consider the matter, it must be owned that 
the vulgar Heathens were stupidly ignorant as to the truths of re- 
ligion. If we make their |)rac/tce the measure of judging, which in 
this case is necessary, none can hesitate about it. If we make the 
principles and knowledge of their leaders the standard, whereby 
We are to judge of their attainments, and make a suitable abate- 
ment, because scholars must always be supposed to know less than 
their masters, I am sure the matter will not be much mended, as 
the ensuing remarks will in part clear. 

2. As to the philosophers, if I had time and opportunity to pre- 
sent in a bodi/ or si/stem ail that has been said, not by one of them, 
but by all the best of them put together, it would put any one that 
I'eads, to wonder, that they, " who were such giants," as an ex- 
cellent person speaks, " in all other kinds of literature, should 
** prove such dwarfs in divinity, that they might go to school to get 

a lesson from the most ignorant of christians that know any 
" thing at all."* Any one that will but give himself the trouble 
to peruse their opinions about God, as they lie scattered in their 
writings, or even where they are proposed to more advantage by 
those who have collected and put them together, will soon be con- 
vinced of how low a stature their divinity was, and how justly the 
apostle Paul said, that by their wisdom they knew not God, All 
their knowledge of God was no more than plain and gross igno- 
rance, of which the best of them were not ignorant, and therefore, 
Thales, Solon, Socrates, and many others, spoke either nothing of 
God at all, or that v/hich was next to nothing. And it had been 
well for others, if they had done so too ; what they spoke, not only 
falling short of a sufficient account, but presenting most abominable 



• ^ee Cha. Wolsey's reasonableness of scripture belief. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 73 



and misshapen notions about God ; of which we have a large ac- 
count in Cicero de Natnra Beorum.^ 

3. Besides that endless variety amongst diftbrent persons, in 
their opinions about a Deity, which is no mean evidence of their 
darkness, even the very same persons^ who seem to give the best 
accounts, are wavering and uncertain, say and unsay, seem posi- 
tive in one place, and immediately in the very next sentence seem 
to be uncertain and fluctuating. Thus it is with them all, and thus 

, it usually is with persons who are but groping in the dark, and 
know not well how to extricate themselves. 

4. They who go furthest, have never adventured to give any 
methodical account* They wanted materials for this ; and there- 
fore give but dark hints here and there. Cicero^ who would make 
one expect such an account, while he inscribes his book De Natura 
Deonim^ yet establishes scarce any thing ; but spends his time 
in refuting the opinion of others, without daring to advance his 
own.f 

5. They who have gone furthest, are too narrow in their ac- 
counts, they are manifestly defective in the most material things. 
They are all reserved about the number of the Gods. It is true 
the best do own that there is one Supreme ; but then there is 
scarce any of them positive that there are no more Gods save one. 
No not Socrates himself, who is supposed to die a martyr for this 
truth, dursFown this plainly. And while this is undetermined, all 
religion is left loose and uncertain ; and mankind cannot know how 
to distribute their regard to the several deities. Hence another 
defect arises, and that is about the super-eminency of the divine ex- 
cellencies. Although the Supreme Being may be owned superior 

. in order ; yet the inferior Deities being supposed more immediate in 
<» their influence, this will substract from the Supreme Deity much 
of his respect, and bestow it elsewhere. Moreover, about God's 
creating power their accounts are very uncertain, few of them 
owning it plainly. Nor are any of them plain enough about the 
special providence of God, without which it is impossible to sup- 
port religion in the world. 



* Cicero, Lib. 1. V. 4. Qui vero Deos esse dixenint, tanta sunt in varietate ac 
dissentione constitntiy iit eorum molestum sit anmcmerare sententias. JVam de 
Jigiiris Deorim & de locis atque sedibns & actione vitts^ multa dicnntur^ &c — 
" But those who have affirmed that there are Gods, have gone into so great a 
" variety and difference of opinion, that it Is difficult to enumerate their sen- 
** timents, for many things are said by them concerning' the shapes of the 
" Gods, their places, h: i.itations, and manner of life." 

■j- De Natura Deorum, Lib. 2. Jin, inquit, obuiuaes quod iiutio dixerim, faciliits 
me talibus de rebus, quodnon sentirem quam gziod sentirem dicere posse. — " Have 
" you forgot tha.t I told you at the beginning, that I could mors easily teii 

what I did not thmk, than what I thought, of these matters 



10 



74 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



6. As their accounts are too narrow, go in what they do own 
they are too general. But will this maintain religion ? No, by no 
means. But there must be a particular discovery of these things. 

Well, do they afford this ? Nay, so far are they from explaining 
themselves to any purpose here, that industriously they keep iu 
dark generals. The divine excellencies, unless it be a few negative 
ones, they do seldom attenlpt any explication of. His providence 
the}' dare not attempt any particular account of. The extent of it 
to all particular actions is denied by many of their schools, owned 
distinctly by few, if any ; but particularly cleared up by none of 
them.* The laws whereby he rules men are no where declared* 
When some of them are insisted on in their elhicks, the authority 
of God in tliem, which is the only supreme ground of obedience, 
and that which alone can lay any foundation for our acceptance in 
that obedience at God's hand, is no where taken notice of. Thp_ 
holiness j)f Ihe divine nature, which is the great restraint from sin, 
isTRtle noticed, except where some of the more abominable evils are 
spoke of. The goodness of God as a rewarder) is not by any of 
them cleared up. And yet upon these things the whole of religion 
hangs, which by them are either wholly passed oVer, or mentioned 
in generals, or darkened by explications that give no light to the 
generals ; at least, and for most part, are so far from explaining, 
that they obscure, nay corrupt them, by blending pernicious false- 
hoods with the most valuable truths. 

7. The discoveries they offer are not for the most part proven, 
but merely asserted. Their notions are most of them learned 
from tradition, and they were, it would seem, at a loss about argu^ 
ments to support them. Where the greatest certainty is required, 
icijst is found. 

8. Where they do produce ar2;u ments, as they da sometime?, 
for the being and providence of God in general, they are too dark 
and nice, both in matter and manner, to be of any use to the ger.- 
erahty of mankind. 

To have produced particular instances for the justification of 
each of thrse observations, would have been too tedious. Any one 
ih?l would desire to be satisfied about them, may be fully furnished 
with instance^', if he will give himself the trouble to peruse Cicero 
dc Natura Deorum, Diogenes Ijaertliis^s lAves (ff the Pidloso- 
pliers, or 'Sfanlei/^s Lives ; but especially the writings of the seve- 
ral philosophers themselves concerning this subject. Nor will this 
task be very tedious, if he is but directed to the places where they 

* Bocin'nam de pr&i-identia reriim partiadaridx'e gratia a veterions 

C qitutenus ex eorum libris qui extant, coUeg'i potest J remiasivs crtfdi nkservamm 
Her'ocrt de Yeritate, page 271, 272. — '* We ©bserve that the doctrine of uni- 
" versrd providence and particular gi-ace was but faintly believed bv tlie an- 

cicnls, bo fiir as can be collected fyom their books/* 



PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 



75 



treat af God : For they insist not long on this subject, and the 
better and wiser sort of them are most sparing. 

When I review these observations, which occurred by my read- 
ing the works of the Heathens, and their opinions concerning God, 
I could not but admire the gross inadvertency, to give it no worse 
word, of the Deists, (and more especially of the late lord Herbert, 
who was a man of learning and application) who pretend that the 
knowledge of those general attributes of God, his greatiiess and 
<;oodness, vulgarly expressed by Optimus 3Iaxi7nifs, are sufficient : 
Since it is plain from wliat has been said, 1. That this general 
knowledge is of no significancy to influence such a peculiar, high 
and extensive, practical regard to the Deity, as the notion of reli- 
gion necessarily imports. Of which even Blount was, it seems, 
aware, when he confesses in his Religio Laic/, that there is a ne- 
cessity that his articles must be well explained. 2. It is plain, that 
the philosophers, ^id consequently the common people, did not 
imderstand well the meaning of those articles, or of those gener4 
notions concerning God, at least, in any degi-ee answerable to the 
md we now have in view. 

I dare submit these observations, as to their truth, to any impar- 
tial person, who will be at pains to try them, upon the granting of 
a twofold reasonable demand. 1. That he will consult either the 
autiiors themselves, or those, who cannot be suspected of any bias, 
by their being Christians, wliich I hope Deists will think just ; such 
as Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, &c. or these who have made large 
collections, not merely of their ire/? era/ senimces concerning God ; 
but of their expHcations. In which sort Stanley excels. 2. I re- 
quire that, in reading the authors, that they do not lay hold on a 
general assertion^ and so run away, without considering tlie whole 
of what the authors speak, on that head. The reasons why I make 
these demands, are, first, some persons designing, for one end or 
other, to illustrate points in Christianity with quotations from Hea- 
then autiiors, take general expressions, which seem congruous 
with, or may be the same, which the scripture uses, without con- 
sidering how far they cfifFer, when they both descend to a particular 
explication of those general words. Again, some Christians, writing 
the lives of philosophers, and collecting their opinions, are misled 
by favour to some particular persons, of whom they have conceiv- 
ed a vast idea, and therefore either suppress or wrest what may 
detract from the person they design to magnify. iM. Dacier, for 
instance, has written the life of Plato : but that account is the issue 
of a peculiar favour for that philosopher's notions in general ; anrl it 
is evidently the aim cf the writer to i-econclle his sentiments to the 
Christia.n religion. A wgvk that some others have attempted be- 
fore. To this purpose Plato's words are wrested, and such con- 
structions put on them, asxan no other vvay be justified, but by sup- 



76 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



posing that no material points of the Christian religion coutd be hid 
from Plato, or his master Socrates. And yet after all, Plato's gros» 
mistakes, and that in matters of the highest import ; yea, and such 
of them, as are supposed, generally, to lie within the reach of na- 
ture's light, are so obvious and discernible, that the evidence of the 
thing extorts an acknowledgment. To give but one instance ; after 
the writer has made a great deal ado about Plato's knowledge ofthe 
Trinity,* a story which hath been oft told, but never yet proven, 
it is plainly acknowledged, that he speaks of the Three Persons of 
the Deity as of three Gads, and three different principles ; which 
is, in plain terms, to throw down all that was built before, and 
prove that Plato knew neither the Trinity, nor the one true God. 
Finally, general sentences occur in those authors, which seem to 
import much more knowledge of God, than a further search into 
their writings will allow us to believe they had : For any one rriW 
quickly see, that in those general expressions, they spoke as chil- 
dren that understood not what they say, or at least, have but a 
•very imperfect notion of it. And though this may seem a severe 
reflection on these great men ; yet I am sure none shall impartis^y 
read them who will not own it just. 

But now, to return to our subject, this sufficient discovery of God 
not being found amongst those, who were strangers to the scriptures 
and Christianity, let us next proceed to consider those, who have 
had access to the scriptures, and lived since the Christian religion 
obtained in the world. And here it must be owned, that since that 
time philosophers have much improven natural theology, and given 
a far better account of God, and demonstrated many of his attri- 
butes from reason, that were little known before, to the confusion of 
Atheists. From the excellent performances of this kind, which 
are many, I design not to detract. I am content that a due value 
be put upon them : but still I am for putting them only in their own 
place, and ascribing no more to them than is really their due. 
Wherefore, notwithstanding what has been now readily granted, I 
think I may confidently offer the few following remarks on them. 

1. We might justly refuse them, as no proper measure of the 
ability of unassisted reason, in as much as it cannot be denied, that 
ike light, whereby those discoveries have been made, was borrowed 
Tom the scriptures : of which none needs any other proof than 
merely to consider the vast improvement of knowledsre, as to those 
matters, immediately after the spreading of Christianity, which can- 
not, with any shew of reason be otherwise accounted for, than by 
owninzthat this li2;ht was derived from the scriptures, and the ob- 
servation and Writings of Christians, which made even the Heathens 
ashamed of their former notions of God. But not to insist on this.- 



• M. Daciers life of Plato, pag^ 141. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 77 



2. Who have made those improvements of natural theology T 
Not the Heathens or Deists. It is little any of them have done thi» 
way. The accurate systems of natural theology have come from 
Christian philosophers, who do readily own that the scripture points 
them, not only to the notions of God they therein deliver, but als6 
to many of the proofs likewise, and that their reason, if not thus as- 
sisted, would have failed them as much, as that of the old philoso- 
phers did them. 

3. It is worthy our observation, that such of the Christians, who 
favour the Deists most, such Ss the Socinians and some others, do 
give most lame and defective accounts of God. Th6y who lean 
much to reason, their reason leads them into those mistakes about 
the nature and knowledge of God, which tend exceedingly to weak- •' 
en the practical influence of the notion of a God. And we have 
reason to believe that the Deists will be found to join with them, io 
their gross notions of God, as ignorant of the free actions of men, 
before they are done, and as not so particularly concerned about 
them in his providence, with many such-like notions, which sap the 
foundations of all practical regard to God. 

4. But let the best of these si/stems be condescended on, they 
cannot be allowed to contain svfficimt discoveries of God. For it 
IS evident beyond contradiction, that they are neither full enough 
in explaining, what they in the general own, nor do they extend to 
some of those things which are of most necessity and influence to 
support ^rac^ica/ religion. They prove a providence, but cannot 
pretend to give any such account of it, as can either encourage or 
direct to any dependence on, trust in, or practical improvement of 
it. And the like might be made appear of other perfections. 
Again, they cannot pretend to any tolerable account of the remu- 
nerative bounty, the pardoning mercy and grace of God, on which 
the whole of religion, as things now stand, entirely hangs. Can 
they open these things so far as is necessary to hold up religion in 
the world ? They who know w hat religion is, and what they have 
done, or may do, will not say it. 

5. In their proofs of these truths, there must be owned a want 
of that evidence, which is requisite to compose the raind in ihe 
persuasion of them, and establish it against objections. Let scrip- 
ture light be laid aside, which removes objections ; and let a man 
have no more to confirm him of those truths save these arguments^ 
the difficulties daily occurring from obvious providences will jumble 
the observer so, that he will find these proofs scarcely sufficient to 
keep him firm in his assent to the truths ; and if so, far less tvill 
they be able to influence his practice suitably against temptations 
to sin. Now this may arise, not so much from the real weakness 
of the argument;?, which may be conclusive, as from this, that most 
i>f them are rather drawn ab ahsurdo, than from any clear light 



78 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



about the nature of the object known ; and hence there comes not 
that light along, as to difficulties, which is necessary to remove 
them. And though the^e arguments silence in dispute, and close 
the adversaries mouth ; yet they do not satisfy the mind. More- 
over some of no mean consideration, have pretended that many of 
these demonstrations, even as to sonte of the most considerable at- 
tributes of God, are inconclusive : Particularly they iiave asserted, 
that the unit!/ of God^'^as not to be proven by the light of nature, 
nor special providence. But not to carry the matter thus far, it is 
certain that the force of these demonstrations must lie very secret, 
that such persons, who owned the truths, and bore them good will, 
yet could not find it. 

IVIiich more might be said on tliis head, but I am not willing to 
invalidate these arguments, or even to shew all that might, perhaps, 
not only be said, but made appear against them. But whatever 
there is as to this, it is certain that the discoveries of God by na- 
ture's light being small, are easily clouded, by entangling difficulties 
arising from the dark occurrences of providence, and the natural 
weakness and unsteadiness of our minds, which are always to be 
found in matters sublime, and not attended with strong evidence. — 
And attention in this case will increase the darkness, and force on 
such an acknowledgment as Simonides made to Hiero, the tyrant 
of ?^yracuse. That" the longer he thought about God, the more, 
*' difficulty he found to give any account of him.'* 

G. They must, whatever be allowed as to their validity in them- 
selves, be owned to be of no use to the generality, nay, to the far 
srreater part of mankind. No man who knows them, and knows 
the world, will pretend that the one half of mankind is able to 
comprehend the force of them. And so they are still in the dark 
about God ; which quite everts the whole story about the sufficien- 
cy of the natural discoveries of a Deity. 

7. It is plain, that there is no serving God, walking with or wor- 
sliippins of him, without thoughts, and serious ones too, of 
him. Now, his nature and excellencies are infinite, how thea 
shall we conceive of them ? Our darkness and weakness will 
not allow us to think of him as he is, and conceive those perfections 
as they are in him. And to conceive otherwise is dangerous. We 
may mistake in other things without sin ; but to frame wrong, and 
other conceptions of God and his excellencies, than the truth of the 
thing requires, is dangerous and sinful ; for it frames an idol. Now, 
though this difficulty may be easy to less attentive minds ; yet it 
vfiW quite confoimd persons who are in earnest, and understand what 
they are doinif, in their approaches to God. Nor can ever the 
minds of such be satisfied in our present state, otherwise than by 
God*s telling u?, how* we are to conceive of him, and authorising us to 
do it in a w aj- of condescension to our present 4ark and infirm state* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 79 



8. I cannot forbear to notice, as what wants not its own weight in 
this case, though in condescension we di<l a Httle wave arguments 
drawn from the practical influence of truths, that however great the 
improvements, as to notions of truths concerning the nature of the 
Deity may of late have been, yet the effects of these notices in 
their highest improvenient, have been far from recommending them, 
as sufficient to the end we have now in view. This natural theolo- 
gy has rather made men more learned than more pioiis. Where 
scripture truth has not been received in its love and power, men 
have seldom been bettered by their improvements in natural theo- 
logy. But we see in experience, that they who can prove most 
and best In these matters, evidence least regard to the Deity in their 
practice. 

I shall add one observation more, which at once enforces the ar- 
gument we are upon, against the sufficiency of natural religion, 
and cuts off a pretended retortion of it, against the Christian reli- 
gion ; and it is this : Tlie religion the Deists plead for, and are 
obliged to maintain, is a religion that pleads acceptance on its own 
account, which has no provision against guilt and escapes, as shall 
be demonstrated hereafter ; a religion which consequently must be 
more perfect, and so requires a more exact knowledge of the Deity 
in order to its support : whereas, the Christian religion is one which 
is calculated for man in Im fallen state ; and the fall is every 
where in it supposed, and a gracious provision made against defects 
in knowledge, and unhalloived practical escapes. 



CHAP. Y. 

Proving the insufficiency of Natural Religion from its defeclict'^ 
ness as io the rcorship of God, 

THE argument wc are to improve against the sufficiency of na- 
tural religion in this chapter, might have been considei'ed as a 
branch of the foregoing : But, that we may be more distinct, and 
to shew a regard unto the importance of the matter, we shall con- 
sider it as a distinct argument by itself. 

Novv, therefore, when we are to speak of the rrorship of God, 
it is not of that inward veneration that consists in acts of the mind, 
such as esteem, fear, love, trust, and the like ; but of the outward, 
stated, and solemn way of expressing this inward l eneradon. That 
there should not only be an invrard regard to the Deity in our 
minds, influencing the whole of our outward deportment ; but that 
besides, there ^hoyld be fixed, outward, and solemn ways of exer- 



80 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



clsing and expressing these inward actings, seems evident beyond 
any reasonable exception — 

1 . From the general agreement of the world in this point. All 
the world has owned some w orship necessary. Every nation and 
people had their peculiar way of worship.^ It is true, most of 
them were ridiculous, many of them plainly wicked, and all of them 
vain ; but this makes not against the thing in general ; only it be* 
speaks the darkness of nature's light, as to the way of managing in 
particulars, that which in general it directs to. 

2. The Deists themselves own this much. Herbert in his trea- 
tise, de Beligione Gentilium, confesses it a second branch of the 
generally received religion, for which he pleads that Ood is to be 
svorshipped. It is true, in his next, while he tells us that virtue 
and piety were owned to be the principal means of worshipping 
him, he would seem to preclude us from the benefit of the former 
acknowledgment. But yet he dares not assert, that this which he 
condescends on was the onli/ nay^ and so pretend the worship we 
speak of unnecessary : But being to hold forth the siifficiency of this 
natural religion^ he was loth to speak any more of that^ which 
would lead him, if he had considered it, unto a discovery of its 
nakedness. But others of the Deists do own the necessity of such 
a worship, and pretend prayer and praise sufficient to this purpose, 
as he also doth in his other treatises, particularly de Veritafe.-f 

3. The same reasons m hich plead for inward acts, peculiarly di- 
rected to this end, plead for outward veneration likewise. If we 
have minds capable of this inward veneration, so are we capable of 
outward expressions ; and are under the same obligation to employ 
those latter sorts of powers to the honor of God, that binds us ta 
the former. Nor is there more reason why, besides that transient 
regard we ought to pay him in all our actions, there should be inward 
acts peculiarly designed to express our inward veneration, ihsn 
that there should be outward stated acts, peculiarly designed for the 
same purpose. 

4. The natnre of society pleads londhj for this. Mankind as 
united in societies, whether lesser, as families, or greater, as other 
societies, depend entirely on God ; and therefore owe him rever- 
<;nce, and the expression of it in some joint and fixed way. Public 
benefits require public pcknowled^ments : and this sort of depen- 
dence on, and subjection to the Deity^ should certainly have sait^-* 
ble returns. 



* Herbert de Yerltat^, page 271, 272. 

I Herbert de Veiitute, pag-e 272. Js.'oi inter fa externnm ilium Dei cultum 
f sub a2iq2:a reli^'-Toiiii! specie J ex omr.i sectilo re^ione, geJite evicimus. — '* In the 
" mean time we have proved Ihls external wcirship of God, under tom« ap^ 
" pe^.rr.ijc's of r^ll^io;.', fi-oia every a°^e, CQunt^-y, and nation/* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 81 



5. It is incontrollably evident, that many in the world do shake 
off all regard to the Deity, and walk in an open defiance to him, 
and those laws which he has established. Certainly, therefore, it is 
the duty of such as keep firm, openly to testify their dependen^^e 
on and regard to the Deity, which is not sufficiently done by tfie 
performance of those things, which are materially according to the 
appointment of God. For what regard to God there is, influencing 
to those outward acts, cannot be clearly discerned by on-lookers, 
who know not but somewhat, beside any regard to the authority of 
the lawgiver, may be at the bottom of all. It is therefore necessary 
that there be public, solemn actions, directly and plainly importing 
our avouchment of a regard to him, in opposition to these affronts 
that are publicly offered to him. 

6. This worship is necessary in order to maintain and cherish 
that inward veneration. It is well knovv^n, however, how much we are 
bound to it, yet the sense of this obligation, and that veneration it- 
self to which we are obliged, is not so deeply rivetted upon our 
tuinds, but it needs to be cherished, and the habits strengthened by 
actings. It is not so easy for men to do this by inward meditation, 
who for most part are little accustomed to this way, and can indeed 
scarce fix their minds in this inward ex-ercise at all, especially if they 
have no fixed way of exercising it, but are left at liberty to choose 
their own way. Religion, therefore, must go out of the world, or 
there must be stated and fixed ways exercising it. This is easi- 
ly justifiable from experiem:e, which shews, that where once public 
Worship is disregarded, any other sort of respect to the Deity 
quickly falls of its own accord. 

7. It is necessarij for the benefit of human society. The founda- 
tions of human society are laid upon the notion of a God, and the 
sacredness of oaths, and the fixed notions of right and wrong, 
which all stand and fall together. Nor is there any way of keeping 
that regard to those things which are the props of human society, 
without such a worship of God, as that we plead for. This all the 
lawgivers of old were satisfied about, and took measures accord- 
ingly. 

8. If religion has any valuable end, then certainly this must be 
one main part of it, to lead man to future happiness ; which cannot, 
with any shew of reason, be alledged to consist in any thing be- 
sides the enjoyment of God. And it is plainly ridiculous to sup- 
pose, that mankind can be kept up in any fixed expectation of, or 
close pursuit after this, if not animated and encouraged by some, 
nay frequent experiences of commerce betwixt him and the Deity 
here. And it is foolish to pretend, that this is otherwise to be had, 
in any degree answerable to this end, in any other way than in the 
way of designed, fixed, solemn and stated worship. 



n 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



No\r, tills much being said in the general for ciearing the neces- 
sity of such a worship and the importance of it in religion; it re- 
mains that we prove the light of nature insu fficient to direct us as to 
the rcai/ of it. And this we conceive may be easily made appear 
from the ensuing; grounds. 

1 . The manifest mistake? al! the world fell into, who were left 
in this matter to the conduct of the mere light of nature, abundant- 
ly evince the incompetency of nature's light for man's direction, 
with respect to the worship of God, Every nation had their own 
way of worship, and that stuffed with blasphemous, unworthy, ri- 
diculous, ungrounded, impious and horrid rites and usages ; of which 
there are innumerable accounts every where to be met with. We 
can no where in the Heathen world find any worship that is not 
manifestly unworthy of, and injurious to the glorious God. Surely 
that light that suffered the world to lose their way so evidently, 
must be sadly defective, ^^heir worship was every where such, 
even where Tv^ise men were the instituters of it, that it could not sa- 
tisfy any person who had any true notion of God ; and was the 
scorn of the ^ise and discerning. ^ i Nor can it with any shew of 
reason be pleaded, that these defects and enormities are to be charg- 
ed not on the defectiveness of nature^ s light, but the negligence of 
those who did not use it to that advantage it might have been used ;J 
since it has been above proven, that the only way we can* judge 
what nati'je's light can do, is by considering what it has done some- 
where or other. And these enormities did every where obtain : 
they were not peculiar to some places ; but wherever men were 
left to the mere light of nature, there they fell into them. 

l!. These ways of worship, viz. and j^mf^e, which are con- 

descended upon by the Deists, and seem in general to have the 
countenance of reason ; yet, as they are discovered by nature's 
light, can no way satisfy. Be it granted, that nature's li^ht directs ' 
to theni in general, and binds them on us as duty ; yet it must be 
allowed, that this is not enough ; for the difficulty is, how we shall 
in pariicular manage them to the glor>/ of God, and our own ad- 
vantagre. The duty is stated in the general, and when we begin 
to think of compliance with it, we find the light of nature, like the 
Egyptian task-masters, set u^ our work, and demand hrick, while 
yet it allows us no stran\ What endless difficulties are we cast ia^ 
about the matter of our prayers and praises ? "What things shall we 
piuT to God, and praise him for ? How shall we be furnished with 
sr.ch discoveries of the nature, excellencies, and works of God ; 
and what things are proper for us, as may be sufficient to guide us 
in our prayers and praises, and keep us up in a close attendance on 
these duties in the whole tract of our lives, without wearying or 
fainting ? Are we, because we know not what is good or ill for us, 
to hold in mere generals, as the best cf the philosophers thought ' 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISIIS. 



8^ 



if so, will the mind of man, for so long a tract of time, be able tp 
continue in this general way, without nauseating ? Or, shall we de- 
scend to particulars ? If so, how shall materials be furnished to us 
for such pai'ticular addresses,, who know so little of God's works, or 
our own wants ? Again, who shall teach us the way and manner of 
praying and praising, which will be acceptable to God ? Shall every 
one's fancy be the rule ? If there be a fixed rule, which, and where 
is it ? Again, What security have we from the mere light of na- 
ture, as to the success and acceptance of these duties ? It will be 
to no advantage to except, that God requires of us no more than ho 
has directed us in ; for this is to beg the main question. Were it 
once granted, that no more is required than what nature's light di- 
rects to, there might be some countenance for this plea, that when 
it gives no directions in, will not be insisted upon, by God ; but this 
i*s plainly refused, and so the difficulties remain. Nor is it to more 
advantage to pretend, that the substance being agreed to, Ciod will 
not insist upon circumstances of worship : for the difficulties ob- 
jected respect not merely the circumstances, but the very substan- 
tial parts of these duties. As to what may be pretended of the in- 
fluence of the hopes of eternal life, towards the keeping up men in 
an attendance on duties ; as to the particular manner of the per- 
formance of which, and the grounds of acceptance, they are entire- 
ly in the dark. This plea shall be fully considered afterwards 
and as it is obvious, that no general snpposal of benefit can for an>' 
long tract of time keep men steady in the performance of action 
about the nature and acceptance of which they are in doubt ; so, it 
shall be made appear there is no ground from the mere light of na- 
ture for any such hope of future felicity, as can relieve in tlii^- 
case. 

3. The plain confession of the more thoughtful, wise and discern- 
ing of the Heathen world, plainly proves this.-'^ The followers of 
the famed Confucious in China, though they own that there is one 
supreme God, yet profess themselves ignorant of the v\^ay in v/hicli 
he is to be worshipped, and therefore think it safer to abstain from 
worshipping, than err in the assignation of improper honour to him,. 
Plato, in his second Alcibiades, which he inscribes, " Of Prayer," 
makes it his business to prove, " that we know not how to. manage 
prayer and therefore concludes it " safer to abstain altogether, 
" than err in the manner." Alcibiades is going to the temple to 
pray, Socrates meets him, dissuades him, and proves his inability 
to manage the duty, of which he is at length convinced ; whereupon 
Socrates concludes, " You see, says he, that it is not at all sisfs 
" for you to go and pray in the temple— I am therefore of tivs 
" mind that it is much better for yon to be silent. — And it is ne- 

* Ilornbeck de Conversiene Gentilium, Lib. 5. Cap. 6. ps^e 4r. 



84 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



cessary you should wait for some person to teach jon how ytyfk 
ought to behave yourselves, both towards the gods and men. To 
which Alcibiades saidj and when ^ill that time come, Socrates ? 
«^ And who is he that will instruct me ? With what pleasure should 
*' I look on him ? To wliich he replies, He will do it who takes a 
true care of you. But methinks, as we read in Homer, that 
** IMinerva dissipated the mist that covered DioQiedes, and hindered 
him from distinguishing a God from a man ; so it is necessary^ 
" that he should in the first place scatter the darkness that cover* 
your soul, and afterwarxls give you these remedies that are neces- 
sary to put you in a condition of discerning good and evil ; for at 
present you know not how to make a difference. Alcibiades^ 
" says, I think I must defer my sacrifice to that time^ Socrates 
" approves — You have reason, says he ; it is more safe so to do, 
than run so great a risk."* The famed Epictetus was so much 
of the same mind, that he knew no way but to advise every one 
to follow the custom of their country in worship.^f Upon the 
same account Seneca rejects all this worship. And memorable is 
the confession of Jambliclius, a Platonic philosopher, who lived in 
the fourth century :-— *' It is not easy to know what God will be 
*' pleased with, unless we be either immediately instructed by God 
^' ourselves, or tauaht by some person whom God hath conversed 
" with, or arrive at tlie knowledge of it by some divine means or 
other/'t Thus you see how much these great men were be- 
misted in this matter, and may easily conclude what the case of 
the rest of mankind was. 

4. The very nature of the thing seems to plead against the suf- 
ficienaj of reason ia tliiM point : for it seems plainly to be founded 
on the clearest notions of nature's light, that the worship of God is 
to be regulated by the n^ill and pleasure of God ; which, if he re- 
veal not, how can r\ e know it ? Hence it was that the Heathens 
never pretended reason^ but always revelation for their worship. 
The governors all of them did this. And Plato tells " That 
laws concercing divine matters must be had from the Delphick 
Oracles."ii 

IMuch more might be said on this head, were it needful : but I 
*an apprehensive this is a point that the Deists will not be found to 
dispute with us ; not only because they are no great friends to this 
worship^ but because they can say so little on this head, v, hicli has 
any shew of reason : of which their famed leader Herbert was suffi- 
ciently aware, when he tells us in his third article. That virtue is 

* We have the same account of Socrates Xenophon ; of which Stanley, 
pasce 75. 

t Epictet. Enchirkl. Cap. 38. 

:t Seneca Epis. 95. Jambl. dc Vita Pythag. Cap. 28. 

!| Pl ito de Legibi\3. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 85 



the principal worship of God; whereby he owns, that there is in- 
deed another part of, which he dare not name, because he knows 
not what to say about it. 

CHAP. VI. 

Proving the Insuffkimci/ of Natural Religion, from its Defective^ 
ness as to the Discovert^ wherein Man's Happiness lies. 

NEXT to the glori/ of God, the indisputably supreme end of 
man, and of the whole creation, of which I am not now to discourse, 
the happiness of tnan, is, past all peradventure, his chief end. 
Yea, perhaps, if we speak properly, except as abovesaid, it is his 
only end. For whatever man is capable of designing, is compre- 
hended under this, being either what doth, or at least is judged to 
contain somewhat of happiness in it, or what is supposed to con- 
tribute to that wherein satisfaction is understood to consist. Every 
thing that a man aims at, is either aimed at as good in itself, or 
contributing to our good. The first is a part of our happiness ; 
the last is not in proper speech so designed, but the good to which 
it contributes, and that still is as before a part of our happiness. If 
religion is therefore any way useful or sufficient, it must be so with 
respect to this end. And since religion not only claims some re- 
gard from man, but pleads the preference to all other things, and 
demands his chief concern, and his being employed about it as the 
vmiin business of his life, it must either contribute more toward 
this end, than any thing else, nay be able to lead man to this end, 
otherwise it deserves not that regard which it claims, and is indeed 

little, if any use to mankind. If then we are able to evince that 
natural religion is not sufficient to lead man to tliat happiness, which 
all men seek, and is indeed the chief end of man, there will be no 
place left for the pretence of its sufficiency, in so far as it is the 
subject of this controversy betwixt the Deists and us. And this 
we conceive may be made appear many ways. But in this chapter 
we shall confine ourselves to one of them. 

I If nature's light is not able to give any tolerable discovery of that 
wherein man's happiness lies, and that it may by him be obtained, 
then surely it can never furnish him with a religion that is able to 
conduct him to it.f This cannot with any shew of reason be deni- 
ed. It remains therefore that I make appear, that nature's light is 
not able to discover wherein man's happiness lies, and its attahux- 
bleness. Now this I think is fully made out by the following con- 
siderations : 



86 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



1 . They who being left to the conduct of the mere light of nature* 
Lave sought after that good wherein man's happiness is to be had^ 
could not come to any agreement or consistency among themselves. 
This is a point of the first importance, as being the hinge whereoa 
the whole of a man's life must turn ; the spring which must set a 
man a going, and give life to all his actions, and to this they must 
all be directed. This, if any other thing ought to be easily known ; 
and if nature's light is a sufficient guide, it must give evident dis- 
coveries of. But, methinks, here is a great sign of a want of thi,^ 
evidence ; great men, learned men, wise philosophers and industri- 
ous searchers of truth have split upon this point, into an endless 
variety of opinions ; insomuch that Varro pretends to reckon up 
no less than 288 different opinions. May I not now use the argu- 
ment of one of the Deists, in a case which he falsely supposes to 
foe alike, and thus in his own words argue upon this point, (only 
putting in, the discoveries of natiire^s li^ht ahoid happincsSy or the 
evidence of those discoveries, in place of the evidence of the reasons 
of the Christian religion, against which he argues) : " If the dis- 
" coveries of ;l were evident, there could be no longer any con- 
** tention or difference about the chief good ; all men would em- 
" brace the same and acquiesce in it : no prejudice would prevail 
" against the certainty of such a good."* J *• It is every man's 
*' greatest business here to labour for his iiappiness, and conse- 
<^ quently none would be backward to know it. And, if all do not 

agree in it, those marks of truth in it are not visible, which are 
" necessary to draw anassent."| But whatever there is in this, it 
is a most certain argument of darknes?i, that there is so great a dif- 
ference, where the searchers are many, it is every one's interest 
to find, and the business and search b plied with great applica- 
tion. 

2. The greatest of the philosophers have been plainly mistaken 
in it. They espoused opinions in this matter, which are not capa- 
ble of any tolerable defence. Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, defin- 
ed them " happy who are competently furnished with outward 
" things, act honestly and live tenjperateiy."J Socrates held, that 
there was but one chief good, hicli is knowledge, if we may be- 
lieve Diogenes Laertius in his life. Aristotle, if we may take the 
same author's words for it, places it ia vlrlue, health and outward 
conveniency, which no doubt was his opinion, r^inee he approved 
Solon's definition of the chief good ;|! and herein he vvas foilovv^ed 
by his numerous school. Pythagoras telk us, i\uX the knowledge 
" of the perfections of the soul is the chief good."' It is true, ho 

* Oracles of Reason, pag-e 206. 
t J bid, page 201. 

+ Stanley, page 26. Life of Solon. Cap. 9. 
a; Stanley, page 540. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 



87 



seems at other times to speak somewhat differently ; of which we 
may speak afterwards. Zeno tells us, that it lies in " living acr 
" cording to nature. Cleantbes adds, that " according to nature 

is according to virtue." Crysippus tells us, that it is " to live 
^* according to expert knowledge of things which happen naturally. "'-^^ 
It is needless to spend time in reckoning up innumerable others, 
who all run the same way, placing happiness in that which is not 
able to afford it, as being finite, of short continuance, fickle and 
uncertain. It is not my design to confute those several opinions. 
It is evident to any one, that they are all confined to time, and up- 
on this very account fail of what can make us happy. 

3. They who seem to come some nearer the matter, and talk 
sometimes of conformity lo God being the chief good ; that it is 
our end to be like God, and the like ; as Pythagoras and some 
others ;t but especially Plato, who goes further than any of the 
rest ;J yet cannot justly be alledged to have made the discovery, 
because we have not any account of their opinions clearly deliver- 
ed by themselves, but hints here and there gathered up from their 
writings, which are very far from satisfying us as to their mind. — : 
Besides they are so variable, and express themselves so different- 
ly, in different places, that it is hard to find their mind ; nay I may 
add, they are, industriously and of design obscure. This Alcinous* 
the Platonic philosopher, tells us plainly enough in his Doctrine of 
Plato, which is inserted at length in Stanley's lives. He says, 
" that he tliought the discovery of the chief good was not easy. 
" and if it were foimd out, it was not safe to be declared." And 
that for this reason, he did communicate his thoughts about it but 
to very few, and those of his most intimate acquaintance. Now the 
plain meaning of all this, in my opinion is, that he could not tell 
wherein man's happiness consists, or what that is which is able to 
afford it : or at most, that though one way or other in his travels, 
by his studies or converse, he had got some notions about it ; yet 
he did not sufficiently understand them, and was not able to satisfy 
himself or others about them, and that therefore, he either entirely 
suppressed, or would not plainly speak out his thoughts, least the 
world should see his ignorance, and that though his words dilTerecF, 
yet in very deed he knew no more of the matter than others. > For 
to say, that, upon supposition that his discoveries had been satisfi- 
ingas to truth and clearness, and that he was capable to prove and 
explain them, they were not fit to be made known to the world, is 
to speak the "[rossest of nonsense ; for nothing was so necessary (o 
be known, and known universally, as the chief good^ which every 



* Stanley, pag-e 462- 

i Ibid, page 192^ Cap. a. 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



one is obliged to seek after. To know this, and conceal the disco- 
very, is the most malicious and invidious thing that can be thought 
of. And rather than charge this on Plato, I think it safer to charge 
ignorance on him. He speaks somewhat liker truth than others, 
w hile he tells us, " That happiness consists in the knowledge of the 

chief good ; that philosophers, who are sufficiently purified, are 
" allowed, after the dissolution of their bodies, to sit down at the 
" table of the Gods, and view the field of truth ; that to be made 
" hke God is the chief good ; that to follow God is the chief good.'* 
Some such other expressions we find. But what does all this say ? 
Does it inform us that Plato understood our happiness to consist in 
the eternal enjoyment of God ? Some, who are loth to think that 
Plato missed any truth of importance which is contained in the 
scripture, think so : But for my part, I see no reason to convince 
me from all this, that Plato understood any thing tolerably about the 
enjoyment of God, either in time or after time, or that he was fix- 
ed and determined wherein the happiness of man consists, or that 
really any such state of future felicity is certainly attainable. All 
this was only a heaven of his own framing and fancy, fitted for phi- 
losophers ; for the being of which, he could give no tolerable argu- 
ments. And all this account satisfies me no more that Plato under- 
stood wherein happiness consists, than the following does, that he 
knew the way of reaching it, which I shall transcribe from the same 
chapter of Alcinous's doctrine of Plato : Beatitude is a good habit 

of the genius, and this similitude to God we shall obtain, if we en- 
" joy convenient nature, in our manner, education and sense, ac- 
*• cording to law, and chiefly by reason and discipline, and institu- 
" tion of wisdom, withdrawing ourselves as much as is possible from 
" human affairs, and being conversant in these things only which are 
" understood by contemplation : the way to prepare, and as it were, 

to cleanse the demon that is in us, is to initiate ourselves into high* 
*' er disciples ; which is done by music, arithmetic, astronomy and 
** geometry, not without some respect of the body, by gymnastic, 

whereby it is made more ready for the actions both of v/ar and 
" peace." I pretend not to tinderstand him here : But this I un- 
dcr^itandfrom him, that one of three is certain, either he understood 
not himself, or had no mind that others should understand ; or that 
he was the most unmeet man in the world to instruct mankind about 
this important point, and to explain things about which the world 
was at a loss. "When men speak at this rate, we may put what 
meaning we please upon their words. 

4. It is plain that none of them have clearly come to know them- 
selves, or inform others that happin<^ss is not to be had here ; that it. 
consists in the eternal enjoyment of God after time : and that this 
is attainable. These are things whereabout there is a deep silence, 
not so much as a word of them, far less any proof. If ever we 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 89 



were to expect such a thing we might look for it from those who 
have not merely touched at this subject by the bye, and in dark 
hints, but have discoursed of mmal ends, on set purpose, such a» 
Cicero and Seneca. Cicero frequently telis, that he designed to 
enrich his native country with a translation of all that was valua- 
ble in the Greek philosophers, he had perused them for this end, 
and thus accomplished, he sets himself to write of moral ends^ 
which he does in five books. Here we may expect somew^hat to 
the purpose : But if we do we are disappointed. The first book 
sets off Epicure's opinion about happiness with a great deal of rhet- 
oric. The second overthrows it. The third represents the Stoic's 
opinion. And the fourth confutes it. The fifth represents and 
asserts the Peripatetic's opinion, which had been as easily over- 
thrown as any of them. And this is all you are to expect here, 
without one word of God, the enjoyment of him, or any thing of 
that kind, which favours of a life after this. Seneca writes again, a 
book de Vita Beata, consisting of thirty-two chapters. Here we 
may find somewhat possibly. And indeed if one should hear him 
state the question, as he does in his second chapter, he would ex- 
pect some great matters from him. Qucsramus quid optime factum 
sit, nan quid usitatissimum, : Et quid nos in possessione felicitatis 
(Btern(Z constituat, non quid vulgo, veritatis pessimo interpreti, prO' 
batum sit, Viilgus autem tarn chlamydatos, quam coronam voco.^ 
What may we not now expect ? But after this, I assure you, you 
are to look for no more words about eternity, nor any thing more, 
but a jejune discourse in pretty sentences, about the Stoic's opin- 
ion, representing that a man would be happy, if his passions were 
extinct, and he was perfectly pleased with the condition he is in, be 
it what it will. Now after this, who can dream thdit nature* s light is 
sufficient to satisfy here 1 Is every man able to discover that which 
philosophers, the greatest of them, after the greatest application, 
failed so signally about, that scarcely any of them came near it, and 
none of them reached it ? 

5. Nor will it appear strange, that the Heathen philosophers of 
old should be so much at a loss about future happiness, to any one 
who considers how difficult, if not impossible, it must be for any, 
who rejects revelation, and betakes himself to the mere light of na- 
ture, to arrive at the wished for, and necessary assurance of eter« 
nal felicity after this life, even at this present time, after all the 
great improvements, which the rational proofs of a future state have 
obtained, since Christianity prevailed in the world. If nature's 

* " Let us inquire what is best to be done, and not what is most common ; 
*'* and what puts us in possession of eternal felicity, and not what is approved 
" by the vulg-ar — the worst judg-es of truth. By the vulg^ar I mean the rich 

and great men, as well as the mob," 



12 



DO 



AN IKDX'IRY INTO THE 



light J no-r under its highest improvements, p7:oyes unable to aifford ' 
full assurance, and still leaves us to fluctuate in uncertainty about 
future liappiness ; no wonder that tliey should be in the dark, who 
were strangers to these improvements. 

That the arguments for a future state, since Christianity obtain^ 
cd, have received a vast improvement from Christian divines and 
philosophers, cannot modestly be denied. The performances of 
Plato and CicerOj on tliis point, Avhich wer€ the best among the 
ancients, are, when compared with our hte Christian writers, bu 
like the trifes of a boy at school, or the rude essays of a novic! 
in comparison to the most efeborate and complete performances of 
the greatest masters ; if they bear even the same proportion. He 
who knows not this, knows nothing in these m.atters. Tea, to that 
degree have they improven those arguments, that it is utterly im- 
pos: ible for any man, who gives all their reasons for the continu- 
ance of the soul after death, with their answers to the trijSing pre- 
tences of the opposers of this conclusion, a fair hearing and due 
consideration, to acquiesce rationally in the contrary assertion of 
Atheists and mortal Deists ; or not to favour, at least this opinions 
as what is highly probable, if not absolutely certain. 

But after all, if we are left to seek assurance of this from the 
unassisted light of nature, that certctinly God iias provided for^ and 
nill admdly hestoiv upon mav, and more especiathj man who is 
now a sinner, future and eternal felicity, we will find ourselves 
plunged into inextricable difficulties, out of v»hich the light of na- 
ture will find it very difficult, if not impossible to extricate us. It is 
one thing to be persuaded of the future rseparate subsistence of our 
souls after dcatli, and another to know in what condition they shall 
be ; and yet more to be assured, that eu^ler death our soxils shall 
he possessed of eternal happiness. It is precisely about this last 
point that we are now to speak. The arguments drawn from na- 
ture's light •wfii scaix:e fix us in the steady persuasion of future and 
eternal felicity. There is a great odds betwixt our knowledge of 
future punishments, and the grounds whereby we are led to it, and 
cur persuasion oY future and eternal rewards. Upon inquiry the 
like reasons will not be found for both. Our notices about eternal 
rewards, hen the promises of it contained in the scriptures are set 
aside, will be found liable to many objections, hardly io be solved 
by the mere light of nature, which do not so much affect the proofs 
advanced far future punishments. Besides, since the entrance of 
Bin, its universal prevalence in the world, and the consequences 
following upon itj, have so long benig^hted man,, as to any knowledge 
that he othenvise miglit have had about eternal happiness, that now 
it V. Hi be found a matter of the utmost difikulty, if no^ a plain im- 
possibility, for him to reach assurance of eternal felicity by tlic 
mere light of nature, hovrever improven. 



PRINCIPLES OF TIIE MODERN DEISTS. 9i 



The pleas drawn from the holiness ^nd justice of God,- say much 
for the certain punishment, after this life, of many notorious offen- 
ders, who have wholly escaped punisliment here ; esj>ecially as 
they are strengthened by other collateral considerations clearing 
and enforcing them. 

But whether the pleas for future and' eternal rewards, from the 
justice and goodness of God on the one hand ; and the sufferings 
of persons really guilty of sin, but in comparison of others virtu- 
ous, on the otter ; will with equal firmness conclude, that God is 
obliged to,, or certainly 211//, reward iheiv imperfect virtue, and 
compensate their suSerings, may, and perhaps not without reason, 
be questioned. 

That it is congrumis that virtue shouU be rewarded, may per- 
haps easily be granted. But, what that l eward is,- which it moy 
from divine justice or bounty claim,, it will not be easy for us to 
determine, if we have no other guide than the mere light of na- 
ture. The man who pei iectly performs his duty is secured ai;aiiist 
the fears of punishment,, and has reason to rest ful!y assured of 
God's acceptance and approbation of what is every way agreeable 
to his will. He has a perfect inward calm in his own conscience, 
is disturbed with no challenges, and has the satisfaction and inward 
complacency, resulting from his having acquitted himself accordin,;^ 
to his duty : His conscience assures him he has done noiliing to 
provoke God to withdraw favours already given, or to withhold 
further favours. And though he cannot easily see reason to think 
God obliged, either to continue what he freely gave, or accumu- 
late farther effects of bounty upon him, or to protract his happines'5 
to eternity ; yet he has the satisfaction of knowing, that he hath 
not rendered himself unworthy of any favour. This reward is the 
necessary and unavoidable consequence of perfect obedience. 

But this comes not up to the point. That wliich tlie light of na- 
ture must assure us of is. That virtuous men, on account of their 
virtue, may claim and expect, besides this, a further reward, and 
that of no less consequence than eternal felicity. Now, if I mis- 
take it not, when the promise of God, which cannot be known 
without revelation, is laid aside, the mere light of nature will find it 
difBcult to fix upon solid grounds, for any assurance, as to ihh. 
Ttlany thorny difficulties must be <rot through. Not a fev7 per- 
plexing questions must be solved. If it is said, that the justice of 
Gcd necessarily obliges him, besides that reward necessarily result- 
ing from perfect obedience, (of which above,) further to recoin- 
pence, even the most exact and perfect performance of our duly, 
antecedently to any promise given to that effect, with future and 
eternal felicity ; it may be inquired. How it shall be made appear 
that virtue, suppose it to be as perfect as you will, can be said to 
merit, and to merit so great a reward ? May not God, without in- 



92 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



justice, turn to nothing an innocent creature ? Sure I am, no mean 
tiov incompetent judges have thought so.^ Where is the injustice 
of removing or taking away what he freely gave, and did not pro- 
mise to continue ? Is it modest or safe for us, without the most con- 
vincing evidences of the inconsistency of the thing, to limit the 
power of God, or put a cannot on the Almighty. And does not 
the very possibility of the annihilation of an innocent creature, in a 
consistency with justice, though God, for other reasons, should ne- 
ver think fit to do it, entirely enervate this plea ?^ If God, without 
Injustice, may take away the being of an innocent creature, how is 
it possible to evince, that in justice, he must reward it with eternal 
happiness ? Mgain, if we may, for our virtue, claim eternal felici- 
ty, as due in justice, may it not be inquired, What exercise of vir- 
tue—for how long a time continued— is sufficient to give us this 
title to eternal rewards ? If the bounty and goodness of God is in- 
sisted on, as the ground of this claim, the plea of justice seems to 
be deserted. And here again it may be inquired, Whether the 
goodness of God is necessary in its egress ? Whether the bounty 
of God ought not to be understood to respect those things which 
are absolutely at the giver's pleasure to grant or withhold ? Whe- 
ther, in such matters, we can be assured that bounty will give us 
this or that, which, though we want, is not injustice due, nor secur- 
<^d to us by any promise? Further, it may be inquired how far 
must goodness extend itself as to rewards ? Is it not supposable, that 
it may stop short of eternal felicity, and think a less reward suffi- 
cient ? Of so great weight have these, and the like difficulties ap- 
peared to not a few, and those not of the more stupid sort of man- 
kind, that they have not doubted to assert boldly,^ that even inno- 
cent man, without revelatloii^ and a po??itive promise, could never 
he assured of eternal rewards. Awd how the light of nature can 
disengage us from these difficulties^, were man perfectly innocent, I 
do not well understands 

But vrliatever there is of linRj the entrance of sin and the con- 
sideration of mark's case as involved in (':irdfi has cast us upon new 
and yet greater difilcuiiie?. From this present condition wherein 
we find all mankind without exception involved, a whole shoal of 
difficulties emerge^ never, I am afraid, to be removed by unassist- 
ed reason. 

Now it m^y he inquired, what obedience is it that can entitle us 
to eternal felicity? If none r^ave that wiiich h perfect will serve, 
who shall be the better for this rcv^ ard ? Who can pretend to this 
perfect or sink-^s obedience ? If imperfect obedience may, how 
shall we be sure of ttiis? How siiali he who deserves punishment. 



* See the Excellcncj- ot TIi.-oloJTr. hv T H. R. Boil, page 25, 26, 2/, 
?/.c. aud Cons id. about the Rccon, of ij nnd Kcl. by T. E. page 21, 22. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. ^3 



claim, demand and expect reward, a great reward, yea, the greatest 
reward— eternal liappiiiess ? If the goodness of God is pleaded, 
and it is said, that though we cannot expect in strict justice to have 
our imperfect obedience reivarded ; jet we may hope it from the 
bounty of God '! Besides, what was above moved against this, in a 
more plausible case, when we were speaking of innocent man, it 
may be further inquired, w^heth'er, though infinite bounty might 
deal thus graciously with man, if he were perfectly righteous, it may 
not yet withhold its favours, or at least stop short of eternal felicity, 
with the best among sinners ? Again, v/hat degree of imperfection 
is it that will prejudge this claim ? What may consist with it ? 
W ho is good in that sense, which is necessary to qualify him for 
this expectation ? Is there any such person existent ? What way 
shall we be sure of this ? Is it to be measured by outward actions 
only, or are inward principles and aims to come in consideration ? 
"Who can know these save God ? If it be said, w^e can know our- 
selves to be such : I answer, how siiall we maintain any confidence 
of future, nay eternal rewards, while conscience tells that we de- 
serve punishment ? What if by the mere light of nature we can 
never be assured of forgiveness ? How shall we then by it, be sure 
of eternal rewards ? If we are not rewarded here, how can we know 
but that it has been for our sins that good things have been with- 
held from us ? Moy not this be presumed to be the consequence 
of our known sins, or m-ore covert evils, which self-love has made 
us overlook ? If we suffer, yet do we suffer more than our sins 
deserve, or even so much ? If we think so, will we be sustamed 
competent judges of the quality of offences, and their demerit, 
which are done against God, especially when we are the actors ? 
To whom does it belong to judge ? If we meet with some part, for 
ye can never prove it is all, of demerit or deserved punishment cf 
your sins here, will this conclude that ye shall be exempted from 
suffering what farther God may in justice think due to them, and 
you on their account hereafter ? W hat security have ye that ye 
shall escape with what is inflicted on you here ? And not only so, 
but instead of meeting with what ye further deserve, obtain rewards 
w^hich ye dare scarcely say ye deserve ? If God spare at present a 
noted ofiender, who cannot without violence to reason be supposer^ 
a subject meet for pardon or for a reward, and reserve the whole 
punishments due to his cnme<^, to the other world ; but in the 
mean while, sees meet to inflict pre';t;irt pomshment on thee, though 
less criminal, perhaps to convince ibp, n ./rid. that even lesser ofien- 
ders shall not escape ; if, I say, Le deal thus, is tliere no way for 
clearing his justice, but by coviferrlnc^ eternal happiness on thee ? 
Why, if he inflict what further pani-hrjent is due to thee, in exact 
proportion to thy less atrocious crimes ; and punish the other v/ith 
evils proportioned to his more ciroclou^ crimes, and make him up hj 



94 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



the severity of the stroke for the delay of the puiiislmient ; if I 
say, thus he do, I challenge any man to tell me where the injustice 
lies ! And may not the like be said as to any other virtuous person^ 
or whom thou supposest to be such, who meets with sufferings ? 

Nor do less perplexing difBculties attend those other pleas for fu- 
ture happiness to man, at least, in his present condition ; which are 
drawn from God creating liS capable of future happiness, implantii g 
desirei=:, and giving us gusts of it : All wJiich would be given in 
vain, if there was no happiness designed for man after time* 

But liow by this we can be secured of eternal happiness, I d o 
not well see. Nor do I understand how the difficulties which w r 
be moved against this, can be resolved. It may be inquired, wiic- 
ther this desire of happin'^ss, said to be implanted in our natures, k 
really any thing distinct from that natural tendency, of tlie crea- 
ture to its own perfection and preservation, vrhich belongs to the 
being of every creature, with sucli diuerence as to degi^es and the 
manner, as their respective natures require 7 If it is no more than 
this, it must be allowed essential to every rational creature : Anc 
if every rational creature lias an essential attribute, which infers aq 
obligation on God to provide for it eternal happiness, and put it ill 
possession of this felicity, if no famt intervene, doth it not thence 
Ticcessarily, follow, that God cannot possibly, v/ithout injustice, tun 
io nothing any innocent rational creature ; nay, rot create ar:_^ 
one, Avhicb it is possible for him again to annihilate without injus- 
tice ? For if we should suppose it possible for God to do so, anc 
thus wiiknit injustice frustrate this desire, where is the force of the 
argument ? And is it not a little bold to limit God thus ? I need 
not enter into the debate, whether there is any supposable case, 
wherein infinite wisdom m-^y think it tit to do so ? That dispute is 
a little too nice : For on the one hand, it will be hard for us to de- 
termine it positively, that innnite wisdom must, in any case we cani 
suppose, think it fit to destroy or turn to notliing an innocent crea- 
ture ; and on the other hand, it is no less rash to assert, that oui 
not ioiowing any case, proves that really there is none such known 
to the only wise God. Besides, if we allow it only possible, in a 
€onsi.stency with justice aim veracity, for God to do it, I am afraid 
Ihe argument has lost its force. Further, it may be inquired, whe- 
ther the rational creature can in duty desire an eternal continuation 
in being", otherwise than with the deepest submission to the sove- 
tei^ji pleasure of God, where he has given no positive promise ? If 
submission belongs to it, all certainty vanislies, and vre m.ust look 
elsewhere for assurance of eternal happiness. A desire of it, i£ 
<^od see meet to give it, can never prove that certainly he will give 
ir. If it is said, that the creature without submission or fault may 
insist upon and claim eternal happinoss ; I do not see hov»' this can 
he proven. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 



95 



But again, do not these desires respect the whole man, consist- 
ing of soul and body? Doth not death dissolve the man? Are not 
these desires apjparently frustrated ? How will the H^ht of nature 
certainly infer Ironi those desires, gusts, &c. that the whole man 
jjliall have eternal felicity, Avhile we see the man daily destroyed by 
death ? Can this be understood without revelation ? Does the light 
cf nature teach us that there will be a resurrection ? I grant, that 
^vithout the supposai of a future existence^ we cannot easily un- 
derstand AV'hat end there was Avorthy of God for makmg sueh a no- 
ble creature as man : But while we see man, on the other hand, 
daily destroyed by death, and know nothing of the resurrection of 
the body, which is the case of all those who reject reyelation, we 
not know Miiat to conclude, but must be tossed in our minds, 
and be at loss how to reconcile those seeming inconsistencies ; 
wliich gave a great man occasion to observe, " That there can be 

no reconciliation of the doctrine of future rewards and punish- 
" ments, to be righteously administered upon a supposition cf the 
" sepai'ate everlasting subsistence of the soul only.""^ And for 
proof of this, he insists oa severaJ weighty considerations, which I 
cannot transcribe. 

But> should we give n-p all this, will this desire of happiness prove 
that God designed it for man, whether he carried himself well or 
not? Jf it prove not that sinful man may be happy, or that eternal 
happines-s is designed for man, who is now a sinner, what are we 
the belter for it ? Are w e not all more or less guilty ? What will it 
help us, that we were originally designed for, and made capable of 
future felicity, if we are now nnder an incapacity of obtaining it ? 
Do we not find that we have fallen short of pert'ect obedience ? 
And can those desires assure us that God will pardon, yea revrard 
us, and that v/ith the greatest blessing which innocent man was ca- 
pable cf ? Moreover, before we end this discourse, I hope to make 
it appear, that by mere f ,^^^^ of vftfvre m man pri'^i^^^^-^V i-^^^y 
ihiii sbi shall be pardoned ; and if so, it is in vain to pretend, that 
wc can be assured of eternal felicity in our present condition^ 
They who liave sioned less and sulfered more in this life, shall not 
be so severely panished in tliat which is to come, as they who have 
slimed more grlevoudy and escnped without punishment herCy this 
reason assures us of : But it can scarcely so much as alK>rd us a 
colourable plea for eternal re^^vards, to any virtue that is stained with 
the least sin. The scriptures make mention of a hap^piness promis- 
ed to innocent man upon perfect obedience ; arul of salvalion to 
guiity man upon futh in Jesos Christ. Beside these two, 1 know 
no third sort. As to the last, the light of nature is entirely silent, 
'IS we shall see afrerwards. Whether it can alone pixive the fii'st h 

■ Dr. Owen ca Il^b. vL vev, 1, 2. Vcl. 3, page 21. 



86 



AN INQTIIRY INTO THE 



a question : But that man in his present condition cannot be bettejp' 
for it, is out of question. 

6. Were it granted that these arguments are conclusive, yet the 
matter would be very little mended : For it is certain, that thesz 
arguments are too thin to be discerned by the dim eyes of the gen' 
erality, even though they had tutors who would be at pains to i 
struct them. Yea, I fear that they rather beget suspicions than 
firm persuasions in the minds of philosophers. They are of that 
sort, which rather silence than satisfy. Arguments ab absurdo, 
rather force the mind to assent, than determine it cheerfully to ac 
quiesce in the truth as discovered. Other demonstrations carry] 
along with them a discovery of the nature of the thing, which sa' 
tisfies it in some measure. Hence they have a force, not only to 
engage, but to keep the soiii steady in its adherence to truth ; but 
these oblige to implicit belief as it were, and therefore the mind 
easily wavers and losers view cf truth ; and is no longer firm, than it 
is forced to be so, by a present view of the argument. If learned 
men were always observant of their own minds, and as ingenuous as 
the Auditor is in Cicero, in his acknowledgment about the force o 
Plato's arguments for the immorlality of the sovd,^ they would 
make some such acknowledgment as he does. After he has told 
that he has read oftener than once, Plato's arguments for the iminor^ 
tal'dy of the soidy which Cicero had recommended in the forego- 
ing discourse as the best that v- ere to be expected, he adds, " »S*e^ 
" nescio quomoclo, diim lego assentior : cum posui librum, & me- 
cum ipse de iimnortalitale ajiimorum c<spi cogitarc, assentio am- 
" nis ilia elabitur.'^j In like manner might others say, when I 
pore upon those arguments I assent ; but when I begin to look on 
the matter, 1 (ind there arises not such a light from them, as is 
able to keep the minil steady in its assent. More especially will it 
be found so, if we look not only to the matter, but to the difEculties 
wliich offer about it. Yet this steadiness i^ of absolute necessity 
in this case, since a respect to Vim must be supposed always preva- 
lent, in order to influence to a steady pursuit. The learned Sir 
j>iatthev/ Hale observes, that, " It is very true, that partly by 
nnivei-^al tradition, derived pi obably fi om the couLmon parent of 
mankind, partly by some giimmerings of natural light in the na- 
tural consciences, in some, at lea^M, of the Heathen, there seem- 
^' ed to be some common p8r:^i;.as?on of a future state of rewards 
and punishments. But first it was weak and dim, and even in 
many of the wisest of them overhorn ; so that it was rather a 
'■' suspicion, or at most, a vv'eak and faint persuasion, than a strong 

' Clcervi Tus. Quest. Lib. 1. 

7 " But I knov.* not. how \i happens:. Ibat r.lrh^u^-h I assent to liim aslonc^as 
•' T :a7i reading, yet when I hav-r hud dDv/n the; book, and beg'iin to thir': • 'I's. 
.:. ; ^v]f oi' ".he :minor"^.aH' y . f '1; : -.11 that assent vanishes," 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 97 



« and firm conviction : And hence it became very unoperative and 
« ineffectual to the most of them, when they had greatest need of 
« it; namely, upon imminent or incumbent temporal evils of great 
" pressure. But, where the impression was firmest among them, 
" yet still they were in the dark what it was." 

7. (t is further to be considered, that it is not the general per* 
jsuasion that there is a state of future happiness and misery, which 
can avail ;^ but there must be a discovery of that happiness in ita 
nature, or wherein it consists ; its excellency and suitableness, to 
engage man to look on it as his chief good, pursue it as such, per- 
severe in the pursuit over all opposition, and forego other things^ 
which he sees and knows the present pleasure and advantage of, 
for it. Now, such a view the light of nature can never rationally 
fee pretended to be able to give : If it is, let the pretender shew 
us where, and by whom such an account has been given and verifi- 
ed ; or let him do it himself. And if this is not done, as it never 
Jkas, and I fear not to say never can be done ; it would not mend 
the matter, though we should forego all that has been abovesaid, (as 
was above insinuated,) which yet we see no necessity of doing. 

8. I might here tell how faintly the deists use to speak upon thia 
feead. Though upon occasion, they can be positive ; yet at other 
times they speak modestly about the being of a future state of hap- 
piness, and W\h us, " That rcvfards and punishments hereafter, 

though the notion of them has not been universally received, the 
Heathens disagreeing about the doctrine of the imniortality of 
the soul, may yet be granted to seem reasonable, because they are 
deduced from the doctrine of providence,— and that they may 
** be granted parts of natural religion, because the wisest men have 
inclined to hold them amongst the Heathen,"f &c. and now do 
in all opinions. And as they seem not over certain as to the being 
cf future rewards and punishments, so they plainly own they can 
give no account what they are, " Qiice vero^ qualis, quanta^ &c. 
** hx: vita secimda vel mors fuerit oh defectum conditiomira ad re- 
ritatus isthis conformatimtmposiulaiarum^ sciri nequit^*' saya 
the learned Herbert. % 



* Herbert de Veritate, pa^e 59. 
f Oracle of Reason, pag'e 201. 

\ Tie Ver. page 57. & Alibi s£piu$.-^" But what, of what kind, and how 
great, this second life or death shall be, can not be known, for want of those 
" conditions that are requii'ed for the confirmation of the truth cf it '* 



13 



AN iNQUmY INTO THE 



CHAP. vn. 

Nature^s Light affords not a sufficient Rvie of Duty. Its InsuffU 
ciency hence inferred, 

TirERE IS certainly no other way of attaining happiness, than 
by pleading God. Happiness is no other way to be had, than from 
him, and no oth^r way can we reasonably expect it from him, 
but in the way of dvtij or obedience. Obedience must either be 
with respfct to those things which immediately regard the houor 
€)f the Deity, or in other things. The insufficiency of natural 
religion as to n-orsh'vy has been al ove demonstrated* That it is 
wantinjr as to the latter, viz. those duties which we called, for dis- 
fi-xtion's sake, dvtie.^ of moral obedience^ is now to be proven. — 
Thi t man is subject to God, and so i ? every thing obliged to regu- 
late himself according lo the prescription of God, has been above 
Asserted, and the groiirds of this a^sertion^ have been more th in 
ii sirurted. j Nov/ if natiire's light is cot able to afford a complete 
tlir-ctory as'to the whole of man's cofidnct, in so fir as the Deity 
is corcerned, it can never be allowed sufficient to conduct man in 
religior, and lead him to eternal happiness 3 While it leaves him at 
a loss as lo sufficiert rules for universal virtue, which even Deists 
own to be the principal way of serving God and obtiining happi- 
ness. It is one of the princ'p.vl things to which this is to be 
ascribed, andvviierecn man's hopes mustreafonaMy be supposed to 
lean, if he is left to the mere conduct of the light of nature. Novr* 
the iosufHciercy of n-^tura's light in this point wiW be fully made' 
appear, from the ensuin<?; considerations ; some of xvhich are ex* 
cellent'y discoursed by the ingenious Mr. Locke in his Eeasona-^ 
hieiiess of Ckristianiiy^ a > delivered, in the ScripiurCc^ ff he had 
done as well in other points as in this, he had deserved the thank* 
of rll that wish well to Christianity; But so for as he follows the' 
truth we shall t-ke his assistaix'^, and improve some of his notions^ 
adiJing such other«, as are by him oKiitted, which may be judged 
of use to the ease i i hand. 

1. Then we observe, that no man left to the conduct merely of ^, 
nature's light, has offered ns a complete body of morality, Some 
p-.'rts of cur duty are pretty fully taught by philosophers and polii 
ticianif. " So much virtue as was necessory to hold societies to- 

gether, and to coi tribute to the quiet of governments, the civi! 
" laws of commonwealths t ught, and forced upon men th^tt lived 
" under magistrates. But these laws, being for the most part made 
" by such, who have no other aims but their ov*n power, reached 

* Reas.. of Chi-ist pag^e 267, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, m 



^ no farther flian those things that would sorve to tie men together 
in subjection ; or at most, v/ere directly to conduce to the pros- 
parity and temporal happiness of any people. But natural rc'^ 

<^ lii^ion in its fu I extent, was no where, that I know cf, takea 

" Ci^re of by the force of Ditural reason. (It should seem by the 
little that hithertJ has been done in it, that it is too hird a thing 

*' for unassisted reasjn to e^tiblish morality in all its pirts, upoa 
its true foundatioxns, with a clear and co ivlnciiig light."-^) Soms. 

parts hi.ve been noticed, ani others quite oKiitted. A coniplcta 

system of morality in its whole estent has never been attecnpted 

by th^ mere li;^ht of nature, much less completed. 

2. To gather together the scattered rules that are to be met with 
in the writings of morcilify, and weave these shreds into a compe- 
tent bodi/ of morality y in so far as even the particular direction of 
any one man would require, is a work of that immense labour, and 
requires so much learning, study and attention, that it has never 
beefi performed, and never like to be performed, and quite sur- 
mounts the capacity of most, if not of any one man. So that 
neither is there a com.plete body of morality given us by any one. 
Nor is it ever fikely to be collected from those who have given U3 
parcels of it. 

3. Were all the moral directions of the ancient sages collected, 
it would not be a system that would be any way usefiil to the body 
«f mankind. It would consist for most part of enigmatical, dark 
and involved sentences, that would need a commentary too long far 
vulgar leisure to peruse, to make them intelligible. Any one that 
is in the least measure acquainted with the writings of tlie philoso- 
phers will not question this. Of what use would it be to read such 
morality as that of Pythagoras, Vv^bose famed sentences were. 

Poke not in the fire with a sword ; stride not over the beam of a 
" balance ; sit not upon a bushel ; eat not the heart ; take up your 
" burthen with help ; ease yourself of it with assistance ; have ai- 
«* ways your bed clothes well tucked up ; c >rry not the image of 
" God about you in a ring," &c. Was this like to be of any use to 
mankind ? No surely, seuye of them indeed speak more plain., some 
of them less so; but none of them suiSciently plain to be under- 
stood by the vulgar. 

4. Further, were this collecti m made, and, upon other account??, 
unexceptionable ; y^X it wou'd not be sufficie-itly full to be an i;ni= 
versal directory. Far, 1. Mi'^y important duties would be want- 
ing. Se'f-denia', thit consists in a mean opiviionof ourselves, and 
leads to a subm'ttias:, and pissing from nil our m-i^t valuable con- 
cerns, when the ho-^or of God requires it, is the f ind -mentil duty 
of ail religion, that which is of absolute necessity to a due ackoow- 



* Reas. of Christ, pag^e 268. 



100 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



ledgement of man's subjection and dependence ; and yet we shall 
find a deep silence in all the moralists about it. Which defect is 
the more considerable, that the whole of our apostacy is easily re- 
ducible to this one point, an endeavor to subject the willy concerns 
and pleasures of God to our own. And no act of obedience to 
him, can, without gross ignorance of his nature, and unacquainted- 
Bess with the extent of his knowledge, be presumed acceptable, 
which flows not from such a principle of self-denial, as fixedly pre- 
fer the concerns of God's ^lory to all other things. Again, what 
duty have we more need of. than that which is employed in forgiv- 
ing enemies, nay ia loving them ? We have frequent occasions for 
it. If we are not acquainted that this is duty, we must frequent- 
ly run into the opposite sin. But where is this taught among the 
Heathens ? Further, where shall we find a directory as to the in- 
ward frame and actings of our minds, guiding us how to regulate 
our thoughts, our designs ? Some notice is taken of the outward 
behaviour ; but little of that which is the spring of it. Where is 
there a rule for the direction of our thoughts as to objects about 
vhich they should be employed, or as to the manner wherein they 
are to be conversant about them ? These things are of great im- 
portance, and yet by very far out of the ken of unenlightened na- 
ture. Divine and spiritual things were little known, and less thought 
of by philosophers. 2. As this system would be defective as to 
particular duties of the highest importance ; so it would be quite 
defective as to the grounds of those duties which are enjoined. It 
is not enough to recommend duty, that it is useful to us, or the soci- 
eties we Hve in. When we act only on such gi'oimds, we shew 
some regard to ourselves, and the societies whereof we are mem- 
bers ; but none to God. Where are these cleared to be the laws 
of God ? Who is he that presses obedience upon the consciences 
of men, from the consideration of God s authority stamped upon 
these laws he prescribes ? And yet without this, you may call it 
what you will ; obedience you cannot call it. It is well observed by 
T*Ir. Lock-e, — " Those just measures of right and wrons, which ne- 
cessitY had any where introduced, the civil laws prescribed, or 
^ philosophers recommended, stood not on their true foundations. 
They were looked on as bonds of society, and conveniences of 
common life, and laudable practices : But where was it that their 
obligation was thoroughly known, and allowed, and they received 
as precepts of a law, of the highest law, the law of nature ? That 
could not be without the clear knowiedsce of the lawgiver, and the 
" ojeat rewards or punishments for those that would not, or would 
obey. But the relidon of the Heathens, as was before observjid. 
« little concerned itself in their morals. The priests that delivered 
" the oracles of heaven, and pretended to speak from the gods, 
« spoke little of virtue and a good life. And on the other side, the 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 101 



" philosophers who spoke from reason, made not much mention of 
" the Deity in their ethicks.'''^ 

5. Not only would this rule be defective and lame, but it would 
be found corrupt and pernicious. For, 1, Instead of leading them 
in the way, it would in many instances lead them aside. We 
should have here Epictetus binding you to temporise, and " worship 

the gods after the fashion of your country/ f You should find 
Pythagoras " forbidding you to pray for yourself to God," J because 
you know not what is convenient. You should find Aristotle and 
Cicero commending revenge as a duty. The latter you should find 
defending Brutus and Cassius for killing Caesar, and thereby au- 
thorising the murder of any magistrates, if the actors can but per- 
suade themselves that they are tyrants. Had we nothing to con- 
duct us in our obedience and loyalty, but the sentiments of philo- 
sophers, no prince could be secure either of his life or dignity. You 
should find Cicero pleading for self-murder, from which he can ne- 
ver be freed, nor can any tolerable apolog)^ be made for him. Here- 
in he was seconded by Brutus, Cato, Cassius, Seneca and others 
innumerable. Many of them practised it ; others applauded of 
their sentiments in this matter. You may find a large account in 
Mr. DodweFs Apologi/ for the PhllocophJcal Performances of 
Cicero, prefixed to Mr. P;irker*s translation of his bookie Finibus, 
And you may find the Deists justifying this in the preface to the 
Grades of Reason, wherein Blount's killing of himself is justified. 
Of the same mind *ras Seneca, who expressly advises the f ractice 
of it. We should here find customary swearing commeizded,\\ if 
not by their precepts, yet by the examples of the best moralists^ 
Plato, Socrates, and Seneca. In whom numerous instances of 
oaths by Jupiter, Herculea, and by beasts, do occur. In the same 
way we should find unnatural lustrecommzr\dtd.^\ Aristotle prac- 
tised it. And Socrates is foully belied, if he loved not the same 
vice. '\^'hence else could Bocratlci Circedi come to be a proverb 
in JunevaFs days. Pride and self-esteem were among their virtues. 
Which gives me oscasion to observe, that this one thing overturned 
their whole morality. Epictetus, one of the bestvof all their mo- 
ralists, tells U3, " That the consiitiition and imas;e of a philosopher 

is to expect g'ood, as welt as fear evil, only from himself."** — • 
Seneca urgeth this every where—" Sa'piens (am otTdo aniwo om- 
*' nia apnd alios videt, coniemnitque, quam Jupiter : Et hoc 
" se magis suspicit, quod Jupiter uti illis nan voiesfy £ap'i^n3 sicr* 

* Reasonahlener.?; of Christis.nity, pag-e 278. 
f Epict. Enchirid. Cap. 38. 
i Dio£^. Laert. Vit. Pvth. pag-e 7. 
\\ Seneca de Ira, Lib. 3. Cap.'lS. 
f Dioj^. Laert Vita Arist. Lib. 5. nage 323= 
Epict EiicIi.C?p. 27. 



102 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



mdV^^ And again, " Esi aliquid quo sapiens antecedat Deiinu 
*' Hie naturae beneficio, noiz sita, sapieiis esLf LicomptuS 
vir sit extemis <§• insiiperabilis, miratorque tantiim su//'J 
Pride and seif-esteem was a disease epidemical amongst thsm, 
" and seem3 wholiy incurable bj any noticns that they had. Soms- 
^ arrived to that impudence to compire themselves with, nay^ 
^' prefer themselves before their own gcds. It was either a hor- 
rible folly to deify what they postponed to their own self-estima- 
tion, or else it was a ?tupendoys effect of their pride to prefer 
themselves to the gods that tliey worshipped. Never any man 
amongst them proposed the honor of their gods as the chief end 
" of their actions, nor so much as dreamed of any such thing; it is 
^* evident that the best of them in their best actions rejected still 
back to themselves, and determinated there, designing to set up 
a pillar to their own fame."!| That known sentence of ClccrOy 
who speaks out plainly what others thought, will justify this severe 
censure given by this worthy person, Vult plane virtus honorem :■ 
Nec virtut'is ulla alia merces,^^^ Were It needful, I might write 
volumes to this purpose, that would make one's fiesh tremble to 
read. They Trho desire satisfaction in this point, may find it large- 
ly done by others. I shal] conclude this first evidence of the cor- 
Yuption of their vioralih/, with this general reflection of the learned 
Amyrald in his Treatise of Religions ^ " Scarce can there be found 
any commonwealth, amongst tho-se, which have b*een esteemed 
«* the best governed, in which some grand and signal vice hag not 
** been excused, or permitted, or even sometimes recommended by 
** public jaws."ff 2. Not only did they enjoin wron^ things; but 
they enjoined what v/as ri^ht to a -rvron^^ end. yea even their best 
things, as we heard just now, aimed at their own honor. | We have 
beard Cicero to this purpose tel^ino; plainly that honor 7va,s their 
mm. Or of what the poet said of Brutus killing his own sens when 
they intended the overthrow of the liberty of their country, 

Vicii amor pair' o laudunique immmsa cupidOyT^ 

is the most that can be pleaded for most of them. Others are 



* Seneca, EpisL 73. — " A wise man beholds and d'-'spises all thing's that he 
*' sees in the posses ifm of others, with as easy a mind as J ipiter himself. — 
•* And in this he admires himself the more, that Jap:ter cannot use those 
** thing's wliich he desoises, wht veas tlie wise man can use them, bat will not. 

-j- lb. Epist, 53. " There is something- in which a wise man excels God, as 
•* God is wise by the be-nefitof his nature, and not by his own." 

+ lb. de vita JJeata, Ciip. 8.- Let a man be incorruptible and incorrigiblo 
** be external thuig-s, and .m admirer of himself alone." 

II Sir Char. Woiseley's li-.ison of Scrip aire B -Lef, pag-e 118. 

** Cicero de Jniicitia. — " Virtue certainly will have honor, nor is there any 
** other reward of %-ii'lue." 

jj See instances to this puipose in a discourse of Moral Virtue, and its dif- 
ference from Grace, pae^e 225. 

%t " Tiie love of his couaUy, and his immense desire of praise, wercame him.'* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 103 



plainly blasphemous, as we have heard from Seneca, designing ta 
be above Got! by his virtue. At this rate this philosophy talks ve- 
ry oft : " Let philosophy," says he, " minister this to rue, that it 
** reuder m*? equal to Gid."^ To the maintenance of this, their 
notions about th'^ so'il of m n contributed m-ich; stiii'i^ it a piece 
cliptfromGod, *Ai5-9ff-^a(r^fl5r*©fi/, or a part of God, rnAi^ Mff^, 
as Epicletus speaits. j jvjrace caiis it dlvince particula aarce. Uicvj* 
ro in his Somniiim Scip, tells us what they thought of themselves, 
Deum sciio te esse — " Know thyself to be a God." And according- 
ly the Indian Brachmans vouched themselves for Gods. A:id in- 
deed they, who debased their Gods below men, by their abomina- 
ble characters of them, it was no wonder to find them prefer them- 
selves to them. Nor did any run higher this way than Plato. 
Let any one read his arguments for the immortalifij of the smdj 
and if they prove any thing, they prove it a God. Thus they 
quite corrupted all they taught, by directing it to wrong ends. 
3. This system would corrupt us as to the fountain of virtue and 
its prinoiphf teaching us to trust ourselves, and not depend on God 
for it. We have heard some speak to this purpose already; and 
Cicero m.iy well be allowed to speak for the rest. " A Deo taniunt 
** rationem habemns : Bonam autem raliomin aut non honam d 
" ?io!>i>."t And a little after, neai- the close of liis book, after he has 
owned our external advantages of learning to be from God, he sul>' 
joins — " Viriulem autem nemo iinquam acceptam Deo retulit, ni-^ 
" minim rede : Propter virtutem enim jure laudmnur, 8r in vir- 
" tute rede ^toriamm\ quod non contingerefj si id donurn a Deo^ 
" non a nobis /lahei^smus.'^i 't'hns we see how corrupt they were 
in this point, and it is here easily observable whence they were 
corrupted as to their chief end. He that believes that he has any 
thing that is not from God, will have somewhat also that he wiil not 
refer to him, as his chief end. 4. The corruption of this system, 
would in this appear, that it would be full of contradictions. Here 
we shall find nothing but endless jars; one condemning as abomina- 
ble, whit another approves and praises : Whereby we should be 
led to judge neither right, rather than any of them. A man who, 
for direction, wiil betake h'm>plf to the declaration of the philoso- 
phers, goes into a wild wood of uncertainty, and into an endless 
rna^e, from wh'ch he slronid never <-et out. Plenty of instmces, 
confirming these two last mentioned obiervations, might be addac- 



* Seneca, Epistle 43. 

+ Cicero de Xutiira Deonim, Lib. 3. P. mihi, IT'S— -"We have only reason 

" from God, hut we have j^ood or bad reason from ourselves." 

t " But nobody ever acl^nov/ledg-ed th.-it he was indebted to God for Ills vir» 
" tuc,. and certainly v/ith ,q;ood reason ; ibr we are justly praised on account of 
** our virtue, and v/e justly boast of it, which could not be the case, if wc hsA 
** that gift iVom Goil^ und not froin ourselves." , 



1«4 



AN INaumY INTO THE 



ed. If the reader desire tbem, I shall refer him to Mr. Lockers 
Essay on Human lJnderstand!^n^^ book 1. chap. 3. parag. 9. where 
he may see it has been customary with not a few nations, to ex* 
pose their children, bury them alive without scruple, fatten them 
fcr the slaughter, kill them and eat them, and dispatch their aged 
parents : yea some, he will find, have been so absurd, as to expect 
paradise as a renard of revenge^ and of eating abundance of their 
enemies. Whether these instances will answer Mr. Locke's purpose, 
I dispute not row. I design not to make myself a party in that 
contro"v ersy. But I am sure such fatal mistakes, m to what is good 
acd evil, are a pregnant evidence of the insufficiency of nature's 
light to afford us a complete rule of duty. If they, who were left 
to it, blu'-dered so shamefully in the clearest cases, how shall we 
expect direction, as to those that are far more intricate ? 

6. Be this system never so com.plete, yet it can never be allow* 
€d to be a rule of life to mankind. This I cannot better satisfy my- 
self upon, than hy transcribing what the ingenious Mr. Locke has 
excellentV discoursed on this head. " I will suppose there was 
a Stobtus in those times, who had gathered the moral sai/ings 
from all the sages of the world. What would this amount to, 
tow ards beins: a steady rule, a certain transcript of a law, that we 
aie under? Did the saying of Aristippus, or Confucius, give it 
authority? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind? If not, what he 
" or any otlier philosopher delivered, was but a saying of his. Man- 
** kind miffht hearken to it or reject it as they pleased, or as it 
** suited their interest, passions^, principles, or humours. They 
were under no obligation : The opinion of this or that philoso* 
pher, was of no authority. And if it were, you must take all he 
said under the same character. All his dictates must go for law, 
" certain and true ; or none cf them. And then if you will take 
** the m.oral sayings of Epicurus (many whereof Seneca quotes 
^ with approbation) for precepts of the law of nature, you must 
take all the rest of his doctrine for such too, or else his authority 
ceases: So no more is to be received from him, or any of the 
** sages of old, for parts of the law of nature, as carrying with them 
** any obligation to be obeyed, but what they prove to be so. But 
" such a body of elhicks, proved to be the law of nature, from 
" principles or reason, and reaching all the duties of life, I think no- 
" body will say the wqrld had before our Saviour's time." And I 
mcyadd, nor to this dayhss, by the mere liirht of nature. " It is 
** not enough," continues he, "that there were up and down scat- 
" tered sayings of v ise men, conformable to right reason. The 
** law of nature was the law of conveniency too : And it is no won- 
" der these men of parts, and studious of virtue, (who had occa- 
" sion to think of any particular port of it) should, by meditation, 
** light on the right, even from the observable conveniency and 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 105 



" beauty of it, without making out its obligation from the true prin« 
ciples of the law of nature, and foundations of morality." More 
he adds judiciously to this purpose ; but this is enough. And 
hence it is plain, that such a system of morality would, if collected, 
at best be only a collection of problems, which every man is left at 
liberty to canvass, dispute, or reject ; nay more, which every man 
is obliged to examine as to all its parts, in so far as it prescribes rules 
to him, and not to receive, but upon a discovery of its truth from 
its proper principles. 

7. It is then plain, that every man is left to his own reason to 
find out his duty by. He is not to receive it upon any other au- 
thority than that of reason, if revelation is rejected. He must 
find out therefore, in every case, what he is to do, and deduce its 
obligation from the principles of the law of nature. But who sees 
not, that the most part of men have neither leisure nor, capacity 
for such a work ? Men may think duty easy to be discovered now, 
when Christianity has cleared it up. But Mr. Locke well observes, 
" /That the first knowledge of those truths, which have been disco- 
" vered by Christian philosophers, or philosophers since Christi- 
" anity prevailed, is owing to revelation ; though as soon as they are 
" heard and considered, they are found to be agreeable to reason, 
" and such as can by no means be contradicted, 1 Every one may 
** observe a great many truths which he receives at first from 
" others, and readily assents to, as consonant to reason, which he 
" would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond his strength to 
" have discovered himself. Native and original truth, is not so 
<* easily wrought out of the mine, as we who have it delivered 
" ready dug and fashioned into our hands, are apt to imagine. And 
" how often at fifty, and three score years old, are thinking men 
" told, what they wonder how they could miss thinking of? Which 
" yet their own contemplations did not, and possibly never would 
" have helped them to. |Experience shews, that the knowledge of 
" morality, by mere natural light, (how agreeable soever it be to it,) 
" makes but a slow progress and little advance in the world % 
" Whatever was the cause, it is plain in fact, that human reason, 
" unassisted, failed men in its great and proper business of mo- 
« rality."/ 

8. As it is unquestionably certain, that the most part of man- 
kind are not able, by their own reason, to frame a complete body of 
morality for themselves, or find out what is their own duty in every 
particular instance. (I shall not speak of any man's being obliged 
to discover what belongs to other people's duty, lest our antagonists 
should suspect I designed to open a door for priests, a set of men 
and an office which they mortally hate.) I speak only of what is 
every one's duty in particular. And I say it is evident, that the 
most part of mankind are unable to find this, which is not to be 

14 



106 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



done, but by such strains of reasoning, and connexion of conse- 
quences, which they have neither leisure to weigh, nor, for want of 
capacity, education and use, skill to judge of ; and as I say, they 
are unable for this, so I fear this task will be found too hard for the 
ablest philosophers. Particular duties are so many, and many of 
them so remote from the first principles, and the connection is so 
subtle and fine spun, that I fear not to say that it must escape the 
piercing eyes of the most acute philosophers : and if they engage in 
pursuit of the discovery, through so many and so subtle conse- 
quences, they must either quit the unequal chace, or lose them- 
selves instead of finding truth and duty. And if we allow ourselves 
to judge of what shall be, by what has been the success of such at- 
tempts, I am sure this is more than bare guess. 

It is further to be observed, that no tolerable progress could be 
made herein, were it to be done before advanced years. But it is 
certain that youth, as well as riper age, is under the law of nature, 
and that that age needs clear discoveries of duty the more, that in 
•it irregular passions and inclinations are more vigorous, and it is ex- 
posed to more temptations than any part of a man's life ; and besides, 
it wants the advantages of experience, to fortify it against the dan- 
gerous influence of them, which advanced years are attended with. 
Now it will be to no purpose to me, to find out some years hence 
what was my duty before, as to obedience ; for now the season is 
over. The law may discover my sin, b«t can never regulate my 
practice, in a period of my life that is past and gone.j Every man 
must have the knowledge of each day's duty in its season. This 
is not to be had from the light of nature. If we are left at a loss in 
our younger years, as nature's light will have us, we may be ruined 
before knowledge come. Much sin must be contracted, and ill ha- 
bits are like to be very much strengthened before any stop come : 
yea, they may be so strong, that the foundation of inevitable ruin 
may be laid. 

Finally, knowledge is requisite before acting ; at least, in order 
of nature it is so, and must, at least in order of time, be contempo- 
rary. Action gives not always time for long reasoning and weigh- 
ing such trains of consequences, as are requisite to clear duties 
from the first principles of nature's light, and enforce their obliga- 
tion. And therefore man left to it, is in a miserable plight, not 
much unlike to the case of the Romans, Dum deliberant Romani 
capitur Saguntuni^ : While he is searching for duty, the season 
is lost ; and the discovery, if it comes, arrives too late to be of 
any use. 

It is in vain for any to pretend, that the knowledge of duty is 
connate to the mind of man. Whatever may be pretended as to a 



* ** While the Romans were deliberating, Saguntum was taken." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 107 



§ew of the first principles of morality, and it is but a very few of 
which these can be alledged, yet it is certain, it can never be with- 
out impudence extended to the thousandth part of the duties we 
are bound to in particular cases. General rules may be easy ; par- 
ticular ones are the diflSculty, and the application of generals to 
circumstantiated cases is a hard task. It is but with an ill grace 
pretended, that these duties are self-evident, and the knowledge of 
them innate or connate, call it what you please, to the mind of 
man; which the world has never been agreed about; which wise 
men, when the fairest occasions offered of thinking on them, could 
not discern ; which philosophers, upon application and attention, 
cannot make out from the principles of reason. The reason why 
the knowledge of any truth is said to be innate, is, because, either 
the mind of man is struck with the evidence of it on its first propo- 
sal, and must yield assent, without seeking help from any princi- 
ples of a clearer evidence ; or because its dependence on such prin- 
ciples is so obvious, that the conclusion is so plainly connected 
with such principles, that it is never sooner spoke of, than its con- 
nexion with them, and so its truth appears. Of the first sort few 
duties can be said to be. And if they were of the last sort, any 
person of a tolerable capacity would be able to demonstrate them 
upon attention. Now how far it is otherwise in this case, who sees 
not? 

Upon the whole, I must conclude, that nature's light is not suffi- 
cient to give us such a law or rule as may be a sure guide to those 
who desire to go right, so that they need not lose their way or mis- 
take their duty, if they have a mind to know it, nor be uncertain 
whether they have done it. 

It v/ill not relieve the Deists to pretend, that some of the excep- 
tions above mentioned may be retorted upon Christians, and im- 
proven against the scriptures : For nothing but ignorance of the 
true state of the question can give countenance to this pretence. 
The scriptures are a rule provided by sovereign grace for fallen 
man, and by mjinite wisdom are adjusted to God*s great design of 
recovering man to the praise of his own grace, in such a way as may 
stain the pride of all glory. They are sufficient as an outward 
mean, and do effectually conduct man to that happiness designed 
for him, under the influence of the assisting grace provided for him, 
and in the use of the means of God's appointment. They provide 
a relief against any unavoidable defects in his obedience, and direct 
to the proper grounds of his acceptance in it : But men who pre- 
tend nature's light is able to guide to happiness, are obliged to shew 
that it affords us a rule of duty ; which of itself, without the help of 
any supernatural assistance, either as to outward means or inward 
influences, may be able to lead man to the obedience required ; and 
this obedience must be such, as answers our original obligation, and 



108 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



upon account of its own worth, is able to support, not Only a hope 
of acceptance but of future, nay eternal rewards. For such as are 
left to nature's light, can neither pretend to any such outward means, 
nor inward assistance, nor any such relief against defects in know- 
ledge or practice, as the scriptures do furnish us with. Nature's 
lig} t l^ys no other foundation for hopes of acceptance or reward, 
save only the worth or perfection of the obedience itself. And this, 
if it is duly considered, not only repels the pretended retortion, but 
gives additional force to the foregoing argument. 

CHAP. VIII. j 

Proving the Insufftciency of Natural Religion from its Defects as 
to sufficient Motives for enforcing Obedience. 

IT is warmly disputed in the schools, whether rewards and pun* 
ishments be not so much of the essence of a law, and so included > 
in its notion, that nothing can properly be stiled law which wants 
them ? I design not to make myself a party in those disputes. But 
this much is certain, that laws and government are relatives ; they , 
mutually infer and remove each other. There is no government 
properly so called, that wants laws, or somewhat that is the mea- 
sure and standard of its administration. And there are no laws 
where there is no authority and government to enjoin them. — 
Whence this plainly results, that obedience, if it does no more,, 
yet it certainly entitles to the protection of the government. And 
disobedience, not only deprives of any title to that, but lays open 
to such further severities, as the government shall have power to 
execute and see meet to use for its own preservation, against vio- 
laters of its constitutions. But further, to wave this dispute, the 
nature of man which proceeds not to actions save upon knowledge, 
makes this much certain. That whatever he may be supposed to 
be obliged to in strict duty, yet really in fact, he uses not to pay 
any great regard to laws which are not enforced by motives or in- 
ducements, that may be supposed to work with him, as containing 
discoveries of such advantages attending obedience, and disadvan- 
tages following disobedience, as may powerfully sway him to con- 
sult his duty as well as his interest, by yielding obedience. If 
then, natural religion is found unable to discover those things which 
ordinarily prevail with man to obey, and carry him over any ob- 
structions which lie in the way, it can never be supposed sufficient 
to lead man to happiness : For man is not to be driven, But led ; 
he is not to be led blind-folded, but upon rational views of duty 
and interest. That natural religion is in this respect exceedingly 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 109 



defettive is the design of this discourse to demonstrate. All those 
motives, which usually have any influence, may, I think, be brought 
under the following heads. 1 . A full view of the authority of the 
lawgiver and his laws. 2. A prospect of present benefit by obe- 
dience. 3. A prospect of future rewards for it. 4. Fear of pun- 
ishment in case of disobedience. And 5. Examples. Now, as i 
know no motive which may not easily without stretch be resolved 
into one of those, so, if I make it appear that nature's light is lame 
ais to each of them, I think I have gone a great way to disprove its 
sufficiency to happiness. Well, let us essay it. 

1 . The great inducement to obedience is a clear discovery of 
the authority of the lawgiver, and laws thence resulting. This is 
not perhaps, properly speaking, a motive, as it is oft used : for in 
very deed this is the formal reason of obedience ; a regard where- 
to gives any action the denomination of obedience, and entitles to 
the law's protection, and other advantages ; yet certain it is, that 
this should have the principal influence, from the ground just now 
laid down, and therefore we shall here speak of it. It wjlj preva il 
far with man to obey the law of nature, if nature's light clearTy 
discovers how much the law-giver deserves that place ; how well 
he is qualified for it ; how indisputable his title to the government 
is, and how fir he has interposed his authority ; that the stamp of 
it is on these laws, to which we arc urged to be subject ; thatthey 
bear a plain congruity to his sublime qualifications ; that he is con- 
cerned to have them obeyed ; observes the entertainment they 
meet with ; entertains a respect for the obedient, and resents diso- 
bedience. If we are left in the dark, as to all or most of these, it 
will exceedingly weaken our regard to the law. And that this is 
plainly the case, is now to be made appear. 1. Itgoes a^greatiKa/ 
toward the recommendation of a.ny law. to . be_fully satisfied as to 
the quHMC"ation3.Qf theli'amer. But how dark is nature's light 
here r~It discovers indeed his power and greatness : But its no- 
tions of his wisdom, justice, clemency and goodness are exceed- 
ingly darkened, by the seemingly unequal distributions erf things 
here below, the innumerable miseries, under which the world groans, 
and other things of a like nature ; that truly, ^^exy few, if left mere- 
ly to its conduct, would reach any such discoveries of those glori- 
ous properties, as would influence any considerable regard to those 
laws he is supposed to make. 

I dispute not now, what may be strictly known and demonstrated 
of God, hy a train of subtle arguments. For I would not be un- 
derstood so much as to insinuate the want of objective evidences of 
the wisdom and goodness of the Deity, Our question respects not 
so much these, as man's power of discerning them. It is not ab- 
solutely denied, that there are many and pregnant evidences of 
these attributes in the works of creation and providence ; our 



110 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



question is only, Whether there is such evidence of those perfec- 
tions, especially in God's moral government of the world, every 
where appearing, as may be able effectually to influence the prac- 
tice, and affect the mind of man in his present state, notvnthstand- 
ing of any obstructions arising, either from the inward weakness of 
his faculties, or the works of God from without, which to the dar- 
kened mind of man may have a contrary appearance ? And that 
which I contend is, That such is the state of things, so they go in 
the >Vorld, and so blind are men's eyes, that there is not so near and 
clear evidence of these things, in what is discernible by the most of 
men, as may strike strongly, affect powerfully, and have a lively 
influence to quicken to practice. If oiu* governor is near, if he is 
daily conversant with us, if we have daily indisputed evidences of 
his goodness, wisdom, justice, clemency, and other qualifications 
fitting for government, without any actions that may seem to be 
capable of a contrary construction, or even of a dubious one, this 
enforces a regard to his commands. On the contrary, if he is little 
known, if his way of management is hid from us, if there are 
instances, which however possibly they may be just, yet have a 
contrary appearance to us, this weakens regard and quite con- 
founds. And this is plainly the case as to God, with men left to 
the mere conduct of nature's light, not through any defect on 
God's part, but through the darkness of the mind of man in hia 
present state ; and this is the more considerable, that we use to be 
more sensible of what evil any is supposed to do us, than of what 
good we may receive from them. Now since this observation is 
of use to prevent mistakes, I desire it may be carried along through 
the rest of our remarks. 2. It works powerfully, and strongly ex- 
cites to obedience, if the indisputableness of the law-giver's title, 
and the grounds whereon it leans are clearly known. Now as to 
God, the grounds of his title to the legislative as well as executive 
power, are the super-eminent excellency of his nature, rendering 
him not only fit, but the only fit person for it ; his creation of all 
things, and thence resulting, propriety in them as his creatures, 
such as his preservation of them in being, his providential care 
and inspection, and the many benefits he bestows on them. But we 
Lave heard already, how dim the discoveries of God's super-emi- 
nent excellencies are, which the light of nature affords. As to 
his creation, it was disputed among the learned and quite overlook- 
ed by the vulgar, amongst those who were left to nature's light, as 
baron Herbert well observes and clears. As to his close influence 
in their preservation, it could not be noticed or known, where the 
other was overlooked. His providential care and inspection, which 
perhaps, as to its power of influencing, would go the greatest 
length, if it can be proven by the light of nature ; yet cannot cer- 
tainly by it be explained, and truly is so darkened by many obvi- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. Ill 



ous occurrences in the external administration of the world, that 
past all peradventure, it can never suitably affect men, who have 
no other discoveries of it, than the light of nature affords. As to 
God*s benefits, though they are many, yet they did not affect so 
much, because they were conveyed by the intervention of such 
second causes as did arrest, instead of helping forward the short- 
sighted minds of men, and detained them in contemplation of the^ 
servant who brought the favour, whereas they should have looked^ 
further, to him who sent it ; so they should have done, but so they 
did not. Again, some of their most valuable benefits, their vir- 
tues, they denied God to be the author of, as we have heard above 
from Seneca, Cicero and Epictetus. And finally, some of them 
were inclinable to think, that the benefits were more than counter- 
vailed by the evils we labour under. Thus were the minds of men 
darkened, and so they had continued, if we had been without reve- 
lation. 3. It is of much force to influence obedience, if we have 
a clear and satisfying discovery of his government in those laws ; 
that is, that he who is thus qualified for, and rightfully possessed 
of the government, has made such laws, and stamped his authority 
on them. However great ideas we have of his excellency and title 
to give laws ; yet this will have no weight, if we are not clearly 
satisfied that these ari3 his laws. Now how palpably defective 
nature's light is here, has been fully made out in the last chapter. 
4. It will have no small force, if we had a clear knowledge, that 
these laws are in their matter fully congruous to the qualifications 
we desire in a law-giver, such as wisdom, goodness, justice, clemen- 
cy and the like. But as these attributes are either not known or 
darkly known by the light of nature ; so the impress of them on the 
laws of nature has not been discovered, nor is it discoverable : for 
I doubt not but it might easily be made appear, that the whole 
frame of the laws of nature are adapted to the nature of man as 
innocent, and endued with sufficient power to continue so, which 
* is not the case with him now. And, therefore, how to reconcile 
these laws to the notions of God and man is a speculation, as of the 
last consequence, so of the greatest difficulty, which had never 
been got through, if God had not vouchsafed us another guide 
than nature's light. 5. If the law-giver is certainly known to have 
a great regard to his laws, and to take careful inspection of the ob- 
servation of them ; this will be a strong inducement to regard them. 
But here nature's light is no less dark, than as to the rest. The 
whole face of things in the world seem to have so contrary an aspect, 
that we could never see clearly through this matter, if, without 
revelation, we were left to judge of God by the mere light of na- 
ture. The abounding of sin, prosperity of sinners, sufferings of 
the best, and the like, led some to deny God's providence and gov- 



112 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



eminent entirely | others of the better sort doubted of it, as Clau- 
dian elegantly represents his own case, lib. 1, contra Riifinum, 

Sape mihi dubiam traxit sententia menteni, 
Cuiarent superi terras, an ullus inesset 
Rector & incerto fluerent mortalia casu. 
Nam cum dispositi quzesissem fcedera mundi, 
Pi'aescriptosque mari fines, annisque meatus, 
" Et lucis, notisque vices : Tunc omnia rebar 
Consilio firmata Dei 

Sed cum res hominum tanta caligine volvi 
Adspicerem, laetosque diu florere nocentes, 
Vexarique pios : Rursus labefacta cadebat 
Religio caussacque viam non sponte sequebar 
Alterius, vacuo quae curreresemina motu 
Affirmat magnumque novas per inane figuras 
Fortuna, non arte regi : quae numina sensu 
Ambiguo vel nulla putat, vel nescia nostri.* 

I know that Claudian got over this by Rujinus*s death, but such 
providences have not always the like issue, and I only adduce his 
words as a lively representation of the strait. Yea, to so great a 
height came these doubts, that it is to be feared that many were car- 
ried to the worst side. It is certain, the best of them were so con- 
founded with those occurrences, that they could not spare reflec- 
tions full of blasphemy upon Providence. The famed Cato's last 
words may scarcely be excused for this crime. Finally, it is cer- 
tain, that there was so much darkness about this matter, that none 
of them all paid a due regard to God. 

I shall now leave this head, after I have observed one or two 
things ; and the first of them is. That however some of these truths 
above mentioned may possibly be made out by a train of subtle ar- 
guments ; yet such arguments, however they may draw an assent 
from a thinking man, not only transcend the capacity of the vulgar, 
but fail of exciting and affecting even the most philosophical heads« 
For to draw forth oiu" active powers into action, the inducements 
must shine with a light, that may warm the mind as it were, not on- 
ly dissipating doubts about the reality of what it observed, but also 

* I had often my mind distracted v/ith doubt, whether the gods took care 
of the world, or whether there was no governor in it, and the affairs of mor- 
tals fluctuated under uncertain chance. For when I had enquired into the laws 
of the world, as disposed into order, and the bounds that are prescribed to the 
sea, and the course of the year and the succession of day and night, then I 
thought that these things were established by the wisdom of God. But again, 
when T saw that the affairs of men were involved in so great darkness, that 
the wicked flourished in joy for a long time, and that the godly were harras- 
sed ; Religion being weakened, expired, and I against my will followed the 
tract of another opinion, which supposed that the seeds of things have a blind 
motion, and that new forms of things are directed through an immense void, 
by chance, and not by art, and which supposes that the deities have cither an 
ambiguous sense or none at all, and that they know nothing of us*'* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE xMODERN DEISTS. 113 



shewing its excellency. Upon this occasion I may not imperti- 
nently apply to the philosophers, what Plautus says of comic 
poets : 

Spectavi eg-o pridem comicos ad istum modum 
Sapienter dicta diccre, atque illis plaudier 
Cum illos sapientes mores monstrabaiit populo : 
Sed cum hide suum quisque ibant diversi domum, 
Nulluserat illo pasto, ut ilii jusserunt.* 

*' I have often seen, that after the comic poets have said good 
" things, and that they have been applauded for them while they 
" taught good manners to the people, as soon as they were got 
" home, no body was the better for their advice." The other 
thing I observe is, that any defect as to the knowledge of the law- 
giver is so much the more considerable than any other, th^tare- 
gard to the law-giver is that which gives the formality ofoKedi- 
ence to any action, and therefore the less knowledge there is of 
him, the less of obedience, properly so called, there will be. Thus 
far we have cleared how little nature's light can do for enforcing 
obedience from the discoveries it makes of the law-giver. 

2. A second head of motives to duty is present advantage. — 
Now if nature's light is able to prove, that obedience to the law of 
nature is like to turn to our present advantage, either as to profit 
or pleasure, this would be of weight : But it is needless to insist 
on this head ; for who sees not, that there is but little to be said 
as to many duties here ? Are they not to cross our present incli- 
nations ? And for any thing that nature's light can discover, dia- 
metrically opposite to our present interest and honor ; I mean ac- 
cording to the notions generally entertained of those things in the 
world ? So it is but little that it can say upon this head. How of- 
ten are we so situated, that in appearance nothing stands in our 
way to pleasure, honor or profit, but only the command ? It were 
easy to enlarge on this head ; but since it will not be readily con- 
troverted I wave it. And indeed it were of no consideration, if 
present losses were otherwise compensated by future advantages. 

3. If nature's light can give a full view of future rewards , then 
this will compensate present disadvantages, and be a strong in- 
ducement to obedience. But the discovery, if it is of any use, 
must be clear and lively, that it may affect and excite, as has been 
above observed. Well, what can nature's light do here ? Very lit- 
tle, as has b§en above fully demonstrated, when we discoursed of 
the chief end. It remains only now that we observe, that evils 
and disadvantages discouraging from duty are present, sensible, 
great, and so affect strongly : wherefore, if future rewards have 



* Le Clerk Parrhosxana, page 52. 

15 



114 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



not somewbat to balance these, they cannot have much influence. 
Now, it has been made suflficientlj evident, that all which nature's 
light has to put in the balance, to escourage the mind to go on in 
duty, against present, sensible, certain and great discouragements, 
is at most, but a dark, conjectural discovery of rewards, or rather 
suspicion about them, after time, without telling us what they are, 
or wherein they do consist. Will this ever prevail with men to 
obey? No, it cannot. The prospect of future rewards was 
not that which prevailed with the most moral amongst the Hea- 
thens of old. Their knowledge of these things, if they had any, 
was of little or no use or influence to them, as their excitement to 
virtue. 

4. Nature's light is no less defective as to the discovery of pwn- 
iskmmts : For however the forebodings of guilty consciences, a 
dark tradition handed down from generation to generation, and 
some exemplary instances of divine severity, have kept some im- 
pressions of punishments on the minds of many in aU ages ; yet 
it is well known, that those things were ridiculed by most of the 
philosophers ; the poets' fictions m.ade them contemptible, and the 
daily instances of impunity of sinners here, weakened the impres- 
sions. Besides, evils that follow duty, and losses sustained, are 
sensible, present, certain, known, and so affect strongly, and there- 
fore are not to be balanced by punishments, which are not, or ra- 
ther, at least, are rarely executed in time, and whereof there is 
little distinct evidence after time. For be it granted, that the 
justice and holiness of God render it incredible that so many trans- 
gressors as escape unpunished here, should get off so ; yet certain 
it is, that nature's light can no way inform what punishment shall 
be inflicted. 

5. Nature's light can never point us to examples which may 
have any influence. There are but few of those who wanted re- 
velation, even of the philosophers, who were not tainted with 
gross vices. We have strange stories told of a Socrates ; and 
yet after all, he was but a sorry example of virtue. He is fre- 
quently by Plato introduced swearing. He is known to have base- 
ly complied with the way of worship followed by his own coun- 
try, which was the more impious, that it is to be supposed to be 
against the persuasion of his conscience ; yea, we find him with 
his last breath, ordering his friend to sacrifice the cock he had 
vowed to Esculapius. M. Dacier's apology for him is perfectly 
impertinent. He is accused of impure amours with Alcibiades, 
and of prostituting his wife's chastity for gain. It is evident that 
in the whole of his conduct, he shews but little regard to (rod.- — 
Such are the examples we are to expect here. We must give, 
full as bad account of X\\e famed Seneca, were it necessary to insist 
on this bead, Bot to mention others of less consideration. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 115 

Now to conclude, how shall we by nature's light be prevailed on 
to obey, while It gives so unsatisfying discoveries of the law and 
law-giver ? Can shew so little of present or future advantage by 
obedience, or disadvantage by disobedience ? Nor can it offer any 
examples that are worth following. 

It is certain that the experience of the world justifies this ac- 
count. What means it, that instances of any thing like virtue are 
so rare where revelation obtains not ? Sure it must say one of two, 
if not both ; that either nature's light presents no inducements suf- 
ficient to influence pradke, or that man is dreadfully corrupt : The 
Deists may choose which, or both, and let them avoid the conse- 
quences if they can. 

It had been easy to have said a great deal more on this head. 
The subject would have admitted of considerable enlargement ; 
but this my design will not allow. I intend to keep close to the 
argument, and run out no further than is of necessity for clearing 
the force of that. And where the case is plain, as I take it to be 
here, I content myself with touching at the heads which clear the 
truth under debate. 

CHAP. IX. 

Shming the Importance of knowing the Origin of Sin to the 
Worlds and the Defectiveness of Nature's Light as to this. 

IT is not more clear that the Sun shines, than that the whole 
world lies in wickedness. The creation groans under the weight 
of this unwieldy load, which lies so heavy upon it, that it is the 
wonder of all who have any right notions of the justice or holiness 
of God, that it is not sunk into nothing, or exquisite misery before 
now. The Heathens made bitter complaints of it. And indeed 
if their complaints had been left upon themselves, and had not been 
turned into accusations of the holy God, none could have wonder- 
ed at them, or condemned them. For it is manifest to any one 
who will not stop his ears, put out his eyes, stifle his conscience, 
forswear and abandon his reason, that the world is full of sin ; 
what nation or place is free of idolatries, blasphemies, the raging 
of pride, revenge, perjuries, rapes, adulteries, thefts, robberies, 
murders, and other abominable evils innumerable ? And who sees 
not, that all these are the effects of strong, prevailing, universal 
and contagious corruptions and depraved inclinations ; from a share 
of which, no man can justly pretend himself free ? And if he 
should, any one who strictly observes his way, may easily implead 
him, either of gross ignorance or disingenuity. 



116 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



To know liow things came to this pass with the World, and trace 
this evil to its fountain, is a business of great importance to reli- 
gion : Yea, of so much moment is it, that one can scarcely tell 
how any thing like religion is to be maintained in the world, with- 
out some competent knowledge of it. 

1 . If this is not known, we can never make any right estimate 
of the evil of sin. If men were by their original constitution, 
without their own fault, made of so wicked or infirm a nature, as 
that either they were inclined to it, or unable to resist tempta- 
tions, amongst the throng of which they were placed, it is impos- 
sible for them to look upon sin as so detestable an evil as really it 
is ; or blame themselves so much for it, as yet they are bound to 
do. If it is quite otherwise, and man was originally upright, and 
fell not into this case, but by a fault justly chargeable on him, it 
is certain, that quite other apprehensions of sin should be main- 
tained. Now such as men's apprehensions are about the evil of 
sin, such will their care be to avoid it, prevent it, or get it re- 
moved. And who sees not, that the whole of religion is easily 
reduced to these things ? 

2. If the origin of sin is not understood^ man can never under- 
stand what he is obliged to in the way of duty. If we derive 
this weakness, wickedness and depraved inclination from our first 
constitution, we can never look on ourselves as obliged to such an 
obedience, as the rectitude, holiness, and purity of the divine na- 
ture, seems to render necessary. And if we are uncertain as to 
this, we shall never know how far our duty extends. And if we 
know not what is required of us, how can we do it ? To say we 
are bound to obey as far as we can, is to speak nonsense, and 
what no way satisfies the difSculty : For this leaves us to judge of 
our own power, opens a door to man to interpret the law as he 
pleases, and charges God with such folly in the frame of the law, 
as we dare scarcely charge on any human law-giver. 

3. Without the knowledge of the origin of sin, we can never 
know what measures to take, in subduing our corrupt inclinations. 
If we know not of what nature they are, how they come to be in- 
terwoven with our frame, and so much of a piece with ourselves, 
we shall not know where to begin attempts for reformation, or if it 
be practicable to eradicate them. And yet this must be done, 
otherwise we cannot with any shew of reason project happiness. 
But the rise of corruption being hid, we shall neither know what 
it is to be removed or where to begin our work, nor how far suc- 
cess to attempts of this kind may reasonably he hoped for. And 
of liow destructive consequence this is to all religion, is easily 
Been. 

4. If the origin of sin is not known, we will be at a loss what 
thoughts to entertain of God's holimss, justice and goodnessy ye^ 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 117 



and bis wisdom too. If our natures were originally burdened with 
those corrupt inclinations so twisted in with them, as now we find 
them ; or if we were so infirm, as not to be able to resist a throng 
of temptations, among which we were placed, we will scarcely be 
?Lble to entertain such a high regard for God's holiness, goodness 
and wisdom in our make, or of his justice in dealing so by us.-— 
And if we suppose otherwise, we will still be confounded by our 
darkness about any other way we can possibly think of, whereby 
things were brought to this pass, and mankind so universally pre- 
cipitated into so miserable a case. 

5. If the origin of evil is not known, we shall never be able to 
judge what estimate God will make of sin, whether he will look on 
it as so evil as to demerit any deep resentment, or otherwise. 

6. Hereon it follows, that the whole state of our affairs with 
God, will be quite darkened and become unintelligible. We shall 
not know whether he shall animadvert so heavily on us for our sins, 
as to ruin us, or so slightly pass over them, as not to call us to an 
account. If the latter is supposed, obedience is ruined ; consider- 
ing what man's inclinations and temptations are : who will obey, if 
no ruin or hurt is to be feared by sin ? If the former is supposed, 
our hope is ruined. We shall not know what value God will put 
on our obedience, if this is not known ; whether he will not reject 
it for the sinful defects cleaving to it. Nor shall we know whether 
he will pardon us, or upon what terms, if we know not what 
thoughts he has of sin. And this we know not, nor can we possi- 
bly understand, unless we know how it came, and came to be so 
twisted in with our natures. " 

Finally, hereon depends any tolerable account of the equity of 
God^s proceedings, at least of his goodness in dealing so with the 
world, subjecting it to such a train of miseries. If any thing of 
sin is chargeable justly upon man's make and first constitution, it 
will be much to clear his justice, but harder to acquit his goodness 
in plaguing the world so. If otherwise, it will be easy to justify 
God : but how then were men brought to this case ? 

I'hus we have shortly hinted at those grounds that clear the im- 
portance of the case. An enlargement on them would have made 
the dullest understand, that without some satisfying account of the 
origin of evil, all religion is left loose. The judicious will easily 
see it. It now remains that we make appear the insuJUcienci/ of 
nature's light. To clear this point, it is evident if we consider, 

1 . That most of the wise men of the world have passed over 
this in silence, as a speculation too hard and high. The effects of 
it were so sensible, that they could not but notice them, as the 
Egyptians did the overflowing of their Nile. But when they would 
have traced these streams up to their source, they were forced to 
quit it as an unequal chace. The reason whereof is ingenuously. 



118 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



as well as solidly given by the judicious Dr. Stillingfleet : " The 

reason was, says he, as corruption increased in the world, so the 
" means of instruction and knowledge decayed ; and so as the phe- 

nomena grew greater, the reason of them was less understood : 
" The knowledge of the history of the first ages of the world, 

through which they could alone come to the full understanding of 
" the true cause of evil, insensibly decaying in the several nations ; 

insomuch that those who are not at all acquainted with that his- 
" tory of the world, which was preserved in sacred records among 
" the Jews, had nothing but their own uncertain conjectures to go 
" by, and some kind of obscure traditions, which were preserved 

among them, which while they sought to rectify by tneu- inter- 
" pretations, they made them more obscure and false than they 
« found them."^ 

2. Others who would needs appear more learned, but were re» 
ally less wise, offered accounts, or pretended to say somewhat, ra- 
ther to hide their own ignorance, than explain what they spoke of. 
So obscure are they, that nothing can be concluded from what they 
say, but that they were ignorant, and yet so disengenuous and 
proud that they would not own it. Among this sort Plato is 
reckoned, and with him Pvthagoras, who tell us, " that the princi- 

pie of good is unity, finity, quiescent, streight, even number, 
" square, right and splendid ; the principle of evil, binary, infinite, 

crooked, uneven, long of one side, unequal, wrong, obscure."t P^^* 
tarch as is noted by Dr. Stillingfleet, says, that the opinion of Pla- 
to is very obscure, it being his purpose to conceal it ; but he safth 
in his old age, in his book deLegibus, v H 'ecivtyftu* Is^t o-v/t.fic^i ag 
without any riddle and allegory, he asserts the world to be moved 
by more than one principle, by two at the least ; the one of a good 
and benign nature, the other contrary to it, both in its nature and 
operations rjfv «y«^^v rtj^it iixvTttcv retC'rti t«» 

3. Another, and perhaps the greater part, did plainly give the 
most absurd and ridiculous, not to say blasphemous accounts of 
this matter. Some pretending all the vitiosity inherent in mat- 
ter, which they supposed not created. The folly & well as 
wickedness of this opinion, is well laid open by the judicious per- 
son last quoted. This was what Plato aimed at, as Dr. Stilling- 
fleet clears from Numenius, a famous Syrian Platonic philosopher, 
who is thought to have lived in the second century, who giving an 
account of Pythagoras and Plato's opinions, says, Pythagoras aity 

Existente providmtia, mala quoque necessario substitisse prop- 
" terea quod sylva sit 8c eadem sit malitia pradita : Platon&nque 



* Orlgines sacrac, lib. 3. cap. 3. sect. 8. 
t Origines, sacrse, ibid. sect. 11. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 119 



" idem Nummius Invdat^ quod duos rmindi animas auhmnd ; un- 
*< am benejicentissimam ; malignam alteram sciL Sylvam, Igi' 
" tur juxta Platonem mundo bona sua Dei, tanquam patris lib- 
" eralitaie collaia sunt ; mala vero rnatris sylv<s vitio coho» 
" re^cwnf."* The plain case is, they thought God and matter eter- 
nally co-existeut, and that vitiosity was inherent in matter, and 
that God could not mend it. To this purpose Maximus Tyrius, a 
Platonic philosopher, who lived in the second century, speaks, 
** That all the evils that are in the world, are not the works of art, 
" but the affections of matter."t Seneca says, " Non potest ar- 
tifex mutare materiam^^^X This way the Stoicks went — 
Though they who have studied them, pretend that there was 
some difference betwixt Plato's opinion and theirs. They who 
would desire a more full account both of these opinions, and the 
absurdity and impiety of them, may have it from Dr. Stillingfleet, 
but a great many of the philosophers plainly maintained two anti- 
gods, the one good and the other evil. The Persians had their 
Oromasdes, to whom they ascribed all the good, and Arimanius, on 
whom they fathered all their evils. How many run this way, 
any one may learn from Plutarch's discourse of Isis and Osiris, 
and judge whether he himself was not of the same mind. What 
was it that drove those great men on such wild conceits, which are 
so absurd that they are not worth confuting ? Nothing else but 
their darkness about the rise of sin. And how dismal were the 
consequences of those notions and of this darkness ? What else 
xirove so great a part of the world to that madness, to worship even 
the principle of evil ? Was it not this, that they entertained per- 
verse notions about the origin of evils, both of sin and punish- 
ment ? 

4. Not to insist on those absurd opinions, the latter accounts we 
have of this matter, by persons who reject the scriptures, after 
they have taken all the help from them they think meet though they 
are more polished, are not one whit more satisfactory. For clearing 
this we shall offer you the most considerable of this sort that have 
occurred to us. We shall begin with Siraplicius a Phrygian philo- 
sopher who lived in the fifth century, and was a great opposer of 
the scriptures. He in his commentary upon the 34th chapter of 

* ** Although that there is a Providence, evils necessarily exist in the 
" world, because matter exists in it, whieh is naturally the cause of evil. — 
** And Numenius commends Plato who thought that there were two souls of 
" the world, the one most beneficent, and the other, viz. matter, malicious. 
** Therefore according to Plato, the good thing's that are in the world, are 
" conferred on it as it were by the liberality of its father, but the bad things 
** that are in it, originate from the vitiosity of matter, v/hich is its mother." 

t Max. Ter. Ser. 25. 

t Seneca de Provid. " The workman cannot change the nature of tkc mat- 
ter on which he works/* 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



Epictetus, speaks thus : " The soul of man is nexus utrimqut 
** mimdiy in the middle between those more excellent beings, 
" which remain above (which he had taught to be incapable of 
" sin) with which it partakes in the sublimity of its nature and 
" understanding, and those inferior terrestrial beings, with which 

it communicates through the vital union which it hath with the 
" body, and by reason of that freedom and indifferency which it 
" hath, it is sometimes assimilated to the one, sometimes to the 
** other of those extremes. So that while it approacheth to the 
" nature of the superior beings, it keeps itself free from evil ; 
" but because of its freedom, it may sometimes sink down into 

those lower things, and so he calls the cau se of evili nthe soul»^ 
" its voluntary descent into this lower world,^and immersing^ itself 
" in the feculency of terrestrial matter," much more he adds ; 
but it all comes to this, " That because of the freedom of the will 
" of man, nothing else can be said to be the author of evil, but < 
" the soul."^ We have likewise an account from the Oracles of 
Reason much to the same purpose. A. W. a deist in a letter to 
Sir Charles Blount, answering an objection of Sir Charles Wolse- 
ley, against the sufficiency of natural religion, gives this account ? 
*' This generally acknowledged lapse of nature, that it came, may | 
" be discovered by natural light ; how it came, is reasonable to 
*' conclude without revelation, namely, by a deviation from the 

right rule of reason implanted in us ; how he came to deviate 

from this rule, or lapse, proceeds from the nature of goodness, 
" originally given us by our Creator, which reason tells us to be 
" an arbitrary state of goodness only ; therefore not a necessary 
" goodness to which our natures were constrained.^ In short our 

fall proceeds from our not being able to reason rightly on every 
" thing we act, and with such beings we were created { For all ; 

our actions are designed by us to some good which may arise | 
" to us ; but we do not always distinguish rightly of that good: 
" we often mistake bonum apparens for the bonum reale. De- 
" cipimur specie recti. The bonum jucundum for want of right 
*' reasoning, is preferred to the bomcm konestum ; and the bonum 
" vicinuniy though it be less in itself, often carries it before the 
" bonum remoium, which is greater in its ov/n nature. No man 
" ever held that we could appetere malum qua malum ;f and 
" therefore I will not grant him a total lapse in our natures from 
" God. For v/e see many bcrn v/ith virtuous inclinations ; and 
" though all men at sometimes err, even the best, in their actions, 
" it only shews that we v/ere not created to a necessitated good- 



* Comment, in Epict. Cap. 34. 

t " An apparent g-ood for a real g-ood. — We are deceived by the appearance 
" of rectitude — A pleasing' good is preferred to an honorable g'ood, and a near 
" to a distant one, but we cannot desire evil as evil." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 121 



« ncss. It is enough to prove no fatal lapse, that many are prov- 
" ed, through the course of their lives, more prone to do good 
" than evil, and that all men do evil, only for want of right rea- 
" soning ; because the will necessarily follows the last dictate of 
" the understanding."! The next and last whom we shall men- 
tion, is the learned Herbertj whom the rest do but copy after. — 
Thus then he accounts for it : " Quod ad malum culpa spedat, 
" hoc quidem non alimide provmirej quern ah arhitrio illo omni- 
" bus insito, ingaiiioquey quod tanquam bonum eximium Deus 
" optimus maximus nobis largitus est ; ex quo etiam a helluis 
" magis quam ipso intellectu distinguimur : quvm tamen ades 
" ancipitis sit natura^ ut in uiramque partem Jlccti possit sit ut 
" in malum s^pe propendeat Sr dilabatur ; caterum per se est be- 
" neficium plane divinum, ejusque amplitudinis Sr pvastantice, ut 
** citra illvdf neque boni esse possemus : ecquis enim boni ali- 
" quid efficere dicitur, nisi quando in adversam partem dafur op- 
" tio ? Hinc igitur malum culpa accidere, quod nobilissima 
*' animee facnltas^ in nequiorem sua sponte partem, niilloque co- 
** gente traducatur detorqueaturque.'^ 

These three accounts, in several respects, run the same way. 
It were easy however to set them by the ears in some considera- 
ble particulars, and perhaps to shew the inconsistency of the se- 
veral authors with themselves, on these heads : but this is not 
my design to spend time on things, whereby truth will not gain 
much : as, perhaps, they contain the sum of what reason can 
say on the head, so we shall now show how very far they are 
from satisfying in the case. The substance of them may be re- 
duced to these three propositions : 

1. That Man's body sways the soul, to w^hich it is joined, to 
things suitabfe to itself, which are evil. This Simplicius more 
than insinuates. 

2. That as reason is the guide of the will, which necessarily 
follows its last dictate ; so the will's inclination to evil flows from 
our not being able to reason rightly. This the Oracles of Rea- 
son give plainly as a response in the words now quoted. 

f Oracles of Reason, pag*. 197. 

* De Religione Gentilium, Cap. 13. pag. 164. — " With regard to the evil 
" of sin, this arises from no other source than our natural freedom of will, 

which God the best and greatest has bestowed on us as a distinguished 
" blessing, and by which we are distinguished from the brutes even more 
" than by reason itself. But as this blessing is of so ambiguons a kind, that 
" it may be turned either way, it happens that it often inclines to evil and 
" goes astray. Yet, in itself it is certainly a divine blessing, and of such an 
** extent and excellency, that without it we could not be good. For v/ho is 
** ever paid to do good, unless when lie had it in his choice to act in a differ- 
" ent manner ? The evil of sin therefore proceeds from hence, that the most 
'* noble faculty of the soul, of its own accord, and without any one forcing 
** it, is drawn away and turned to the wrong side." 

16 



122 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



3. The will is ancipitis naturce,f perfectly indifferent, equallj 
capable of, and swayed to evil and good. This all the three 
concur in. It is like a nice balance which stands even, but i» 
easily swayed to either side. 

But now it is easy to multiply difficulties against this account, 
and show how it no way clears, but rather involves the , matter 
more. And, 

1 . I would desire to know whether that inferior part, the body, 
or terrestrial part of man, call it which you will, sways to any 
thing, not suited to its original frame and perfection, or not ? If 
it aims at nothing, beads or inclines to nothing, but what is per- 
fective of itself, I desire to know how that can be faulty 1 How 
can this body be made a part of a composition, wherein it is faulty 
for it to aim at what is truly perfective of its nature ? How can 
it be criminal for the soul to aim at ennobling and satisfying the ca- 
pacities of that, which is so nearly united to itself ? How is it 
consistent with the wisdom of God, to unite two beings^ the one 
whereof cannot reach its own perfection without hurt to the 
other ? If it is said, that it inclines to what contributes not to its 
own perfection ; then I desire to know how it came to be so de- 
praved as to have a tendency to its own detriment ? How was it 
consistent with the wisdom of God to make it so ? How was it 
consistent with the goodness of God to associate it when so made, 
with another more noble being to which it must prove a burden ; 
yea, which must sway to that, which proves the ruin of the w^hole 
composition ? And how can man be blamed for doing that, ta 
which his nature inevitably must carry him?- For if he is thus 
compounded, his body, earthly part, or lower faculties sway 
to evil ; his will is equally inclinable to both ; and, in this case, 
how can the composition be other^\ ise, than depraved ? For my 
part I see not how it could be otherwise ; or how God can just- 
ly punish it for being so, upon the supposition laid down. 

2. If it be asserted that we are not, by our original constitution 
able to reason rightly, in what concerns our own duty, as we have 
heard from the Oracles of Reason ; then I desire to know if we 
are not necessitated by our very make and constitution to err ? If 
we are to believe, what the same Oracle utters, that the will must 
folloAV necessarily the understanding ; then I desire to know, if we 
are not necessitated to sin 1 If things are thus and thus, we must 
either believe them to be, or believe that this Oracle gives a 
false response ; then I desire to know, how God could make us ne- 
cessarily evil ? How can he punish us for it ? Can this be recon- 
ciled with the rest of this doctrine, about the arbitrary state of 
man's goodness ? I might ask not a few other queries, but per- 
haps these will suffice. 



i Of a doubtful nature. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 123 

5. If the will be, in its own nature, perfectly free and indiffer- 
ent, then I desire to know, whether there is any thing in that com- 
position, whereof it is a part, or to which it is joined, or any thing 
in the circumstances wherein man is placed, swaying it to the 
worst side ? If there is any thing either in man's constitution or 
circumstances, swaying him wrong ; then I desire to know, is 
there any thing to balance them ? Whether there is or is not 
any thing to keep him even ? I would desire to know how 
any thing came to be in his constitution, to sway him wrong ? If 
there is any thing to balance these inducements to sin, or inclina- 
tions, then man is perfectly indifferent still ; and about this we 
shall speak anon. If there is a will, equally capable of good and 
evil, and man has somewhat in his constitution or circumstances, 
at least swaying him to evil, then I desire to know how it was 
possible for him to evite it ? If he has nothing determining him 
more to evil than to good, or if any thing that inclines to evil in 
balanced, by other things of no less force determining and sway- 
ing him to good, then many things may be enquired : how comes 
it to pass, that though man is equally inclinable to good or evil, 
that almost all men choose evil ? Yea, I need not put an almost 
to it. It is a strange thing to suppose all men equally disposed 
to good or evil, and yet none choose the good. 

4. I do not know how this notion of man's liberty, which is 
easily granted to be in itself, if the notion of it is rightly states}, 
a perfection, will take with considerate men, that it consists in a 
perfect indifierency to good or evil ; for if this is a necessary per- 
fection of the rational nature, without which it cannot be called 
good, as Herbert clearly asserts, in his words above quoted ; 
then I ask, what shall become of those natures unalterably good, 
of which Simplicius talks ? Is it absurd to suppose, that there 
may be such ? Are they, if they be, less perfect, because in- 
capable of that which debases and depraves them ? Is God 
good, who has beyond dispute no such liberty as this ? Is an in- 
differency to commit sin or not to sin, a great perfection ? If it be, 
is it greater than not to be capable of sinning ? They may embrace 
this notion of liberty who will, and fancy themselves perfect, I 
shall not for this, reckon them so. 

5. This account of man as equally inclined to good or evil, is 
either an account of man's case as he now is, or as at first made : 
If man is now otherwise, to wit, inclined more to evil than to 
good, how came he to be so ? This is the difficulty we desire to 
be satisfied about. If this be the case he was made in, and still 
continues in, then, I say, it is utterly false, and contradictory to the 
ears, eyes and conscience of all the world. Who sees not that 
man is plainly, strongly, and I may add universally, inclined to 
evil ? The wiser heathens have owned it. And it is plainly 



124 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



made out against the most impudent denier. Hieroclis' words, 
as I find them translated by an excellent person, are memorable 
to this purpose. " Man, says he, is of his own motion, inclined 
" to follow the evil and leave the good. There is a certain strife 
bred in his affections ; he hath a free will which he abuseth, 
" binding himself wholly to encounter the laws of God. And 
" this freedom itself is nothing else, but a willingness to admit 
" that which is not good, rather than otherwise."=^ This is a 
true state of the matter from a heathen. 

6. The supposition of man's being made perfectly indiflferent is 
injurious to God, who cannot be supposed, without reflection on 
him, to have put man in such a case. The least that can be said, 
preserving the honor due to the divine excellencies, is thatxGod 
gave a law to man, suitable to the rectitude of his own nature and 
to man's happiness and perfection ; that he endued him with an 
ability to know this law, the obligations he lay under to obey it, 
and the inducements that might have fortified him in his obedi- 
ence against the force of any temptation which he might meet 
with. If this be not asserted, it will not be possible to keep 
God from blame, which all that own him, are concerned to take 
care of : for how could he bind man to obey a law, which he did 
not make known to him, or at least gave him a power to know ? If 
he laid him open to temptations, and made him incapable of dis- 
covering what might antidote their force, if he would use it, what 
shall we think of his goodness ? Further, we must own that the 
will of man was made inclinable, though not immutably so, to its 
own perfection : how else was it worthy of its author ? Finally, 
we must own that man had no affection or inclination in him, that 
was really contradictory to that law which he was subjected to, 
and which tended to his happiness and perfection. If this is de- 
nied, then I ask, were not these inclinations sinful ? Was that 
being worthy of God, that had no tendency to its own perfection ? 
But on the contrary, what was inclinable to its own ruin ? 

7. This being the least, that can without manifest reproach to 
the wisdom, goodness and justice of the Creator, be supposed in 
favor of man's original constitution ; I desire to know, is this the 
case still or is it not ? If it is not, then how came it to be other- 
wise ? How comes man really to be worse now, than at first T 
HoAV is this consistent with the deist's principles, that there is 
no lapse ? If it be asserted, we are in the same state still, how 
then comes all the world to be full of wickedness ? How is this 
reconcileable with the experiences and consciences of men, that 
assured them of the contrary ? 

8. If it be thought enough to resolve all this, as to actual failings,. 



* Hieroclis Carmin. Am. Transl, Heas. of Script. Belief, pag-. 146. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 125 



into the choice of man ; yet what shall we say as to that darkness 
as to duty, which we heard the Deists confessing, in their Oraclei , 
of Reason ? How came that inability to reason rightly, which we 
have before demonstrated man under, and which our adversaries 
will own ! Again, how come we to have vicious inclinations so 
strongly rooted in our natures ! Strong they are ; for they trample 
upon our light, the penalties of laws divine and human ; 'yea and the 
smartings of our own conscience. The drunkard and unclean per- 
son finds his health ruined, and yet in spite of all this, his inclina- 
tion makes him run on in the vice that has ruined him : and the like 
is evident in other cases innumerable. Deeply rooted they are : 
They are some way twisted in with the constitutions of our body, 
and no less fixed in our souls. So fixed they are, that, though our 
own reason condemns them, it cannot remove them. Though 
sometimes fear restrains them as to the outward acts ; yet it can* 
not eradicate the inclination. Instruction and all human endeavors 
cannot do it. The famed Seneca that understood so much, who un- 
dertook to teach others, and perhaps has spoken and writ better than 
most of the Heathens ; yet by all his knowledge and all his endea- 
vors, owns this corruption so deeply rooted in himself, that he ex- 
pected not to get rid of it. Non perveni ad sanitatemy ne perveniam 
quidem : delininientia magis qiiam remedia podagrce mece compono 
contentiXs si rarius accedat, Sr si minus terminatiir.'^ 

9. Not only so, but further, how come these inclinations to be 
born with us? To grow up with us? That they are so, is evident. We 
no sooner begin to act than to act perversely. We no sooner shew 
any inclinations, than we shew that our inclinations are evil. Yea, 
among Clu*istians, where there are many virtuous persons, who give 
the best example, the best instruction, and use the best discipline for 
the education of their children in virtue, yet we see the children 
discover inclinations so strong, as are not to be restrained by all these 
endeavors, much less eradicated : and so early are they there, that 
they cannot be prevented by the most timeous care. 

10. It will not help the matter to tell us, that there are some born 
with virtuous inclinations. Fori. If all are not so, the difficulty 
remains. How came these to be born otherwise, of whom we 
have been speaking ! How came their frame to be different from, 
nay, and worse than that of others ! Are they under the same law ? 
If so, why have they more impediments, and less power of obedi- 
ence ? 2. We would be glad to see the persons condescended on, 
that are void of vicious inclinations, that we might ask them some 
questions. You say you are born with virtuous inclinations. W ell, 
but have you no ill inclinations ? If you are no drunkard, adulterer, 

* " I am not come to a sound state, nor shall I ever arrive at it. I am com- 
" posing" palliatives rather than remedies for my gout, being content if it at- 
** tacks me more seldom, and proves less violent.'* 



126 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



Sec. yet have you no inclination to pride, prodigality, neglect of 
God, covetousness, or somewhat like ? I fear the man that can an- 
swer plainly in the negative here, will not be easily found. And 
till we see him, we deny there is any such. 3. To confirm this, 
several persons, whom the world has looked on as virtuously inclined 
from their infancy, have, when seriously acquainted with Christian^^ 
ity, owned' that they were as wickedly inclined as others ; only by 
the help of their constitution, they were not so much prompted to 
those evils, which are most observed and condemned in the world. 
And this account has been given by persons of judgment, whose 
capacity, nor ingenuity cannot reasonably be questioned. Finally, 
the gi'ound whereon A. W. pronounces against an universal lapse, 
viz. That we cannot appetere malum qua malum/^ is ridiculous : 
For this is a thing perfectly inconsistent, not only with the due ex- 
ercise, but the very nature of our rational faculties : And if not- 
withstanding this impossibility of any man's desiring evil as evil, so 
many are deeply corrupted, no imaginable reason can be assigned, 
why all men may not be so, without supposing that we can appetere 
malum qim malum. 

To conclude then, it is upon the whole evident, that reason can 
never trace this matter to its proper source. Our consciences 
condemn us indeed, and so acquit the Deity. But without reve- 
lation w^e can never understand upon what grounds we are con- 
demned by ourselves, nor how the Deity is to be justified ; and so 
this sentence of our consciences involves the matter more, and in- 
creases the difiiculty. It is not from any distinct view of the par- 
ticular way how we come to be guilty, and how God comes to be 
free of blame, that conscience is led to this sentence. And there- 
fore, hov/ to come to any satisfaction about the matter, that may 
liberate us from the inconveniences above mentioned, which are 
really subversive of all religion, and can reasonably be supposed 
available to us, reason can never satisfy us. 

Since these gentlemen, with whom we have to do, find it their 
hiterest to deny any lapse, I shall, to what has been said, add a 
short, but judicious and solid confirmation of this, from a person of 
a more than ordinary reach, I mean Dr. How : who, after he has 
quoted many testimonies from Heathen authors, proving this lapse, 
reasons for it, and confirms it further from arguments not easily to 
be answered : His words run thus, " If we consider, can it be so 
" much as imaginable to us, that the present state of man is his 
" primitive state, or that he is noiv such as he was at first made ? 
" For neither is it conceivable, that the blessed God should have 
" made a creature with an aA^ersion to the only important ends, 
" whereof it is naturally capable ; Or particularly that he created 

* Desire evil as evil. 



PRINCIPLES OF TIIEl MODERN DEISTS. 127 



" man, with a disaffection to himself; or, that ever he at first, de- 
" signed a being of so high excellency, as the spirit of man to 

trudge so meanly, and be so basely servile to terrene inclinations ; 
« or, since there are manifestly powers in him, of a superior and 
" inferior sort and order, the meaner should have been by original 
" institution framed to command ; and the more noble and excel- 
" lent, only to obey and serve ; as every one that observes, may 
" see the common case with man is. 

" And how far he is swerved from what he was, is easfly con- 

jecturable by comparing him with the measures, which shew 
" what he should be. For it cannot be conceived for what end 
" laws were ever given him; if at least we allow them not to be 
" the measures of his primitive capacity, or deny him ever to 
" have been in a possibility to obey. Could they be intended for 
" his government if conformity to them were against or above his 
" nature ? Or were they only for his condemnation ? Or for what, 

if he was never capable of obeying them T How inconsistent were 
** it with the goodness of the blessed God, that the condemnation 
" of his creatures should be the first design of his giving them 
" laws ! And with his justice, to make his laws the rule of punish- 
" ment, to whom they could never be the rule of obedience and 
" duty ! Or with his wisdom, to frame a system and body of laws, 
" that should never serve for either purpose ! And so be upon the 

whole useful for nothing. The common reason of mankind 

teacheth us to estimate the wisdom and equity of law-givers, by 
" the suitableness of their constitutions to the genius and temper 
" .of the people for whom they are made ; and we commonly 
" reckon nothing can more slur and expose a government, than the 
" imposing of constitutions, most probably impracticable, and 
" which are never likely to obtain. How much more incongruous 
" must it be esteemed to enjoin such as never possibly could ! 
" Prudent legislators, and studious of the common good, would be 
" shy to impose upon men, under their power, against their ge- 
" nius and common usages, neither easily alterable, nor to any ad" 
" vantage ; much more absurd were it, with great solemnity, and 
" weighty sanctions, to enact statutes for brute creatures : and 
" wherein were it more to purpose, to prescribe unto men stiict 

rules of piety and virtue, than to beasts or trees, if the former 
" had not been capable of observing them, as the latter were not."* 
I believe the Deists will not easily overthrow this nervous dis- 
course. 



Dr. How's Living Temple, Part 2, page 121, 122. 



128 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



CHAP. X. 

Proving Nature's Light unable to discover the Means of obtain- 
ing Pardon of Sin, or to shew that it is attainable. 

THAT all have sinned is sufficiently clear from the foregoing 
discourse. That it is of importance to understand the rise of sin, 
and that nature's light is unable to trace its original, has been like- 
wise evinced. But all this were indeed of less consideration, if 
nature's light could assure us of pardon, or direct as to the means 
whereby it may be obtained. But here it is no less defective, than 
as to the former. That we are all guilty of sin er\^en the deists do 
acknowledge ; the Oracles of Reason own that all men at some- 
times err, even the best, in their actions. And the evidence of it 
is such, that none can get over the truth, if he is not plainly re- 
solved to deny what is most evident. Now this being the case, 
that we have all transgressed, it is of the highest importance to 
know whether God will pardon us, or upon what terms he will do it ? 
If he punish us, what a case are we in ? How can they who fear 
punishment expect rewards ! But because this is a difficulty of no 
small importance, and the Deists, since they see they cannot clear 
it, make their business to obscure the importance of the case, and 
render it more involved ; we shall, therefore, 

1. State the case, and clear the importance of it. 

2. Discover the weakness of nature's light about it. 

S. Speak fully to a particular exception about repentance. 

Sect. I. 

Wherein the Importance of the Difficultt/ is stated. 

If the Deists should allow sin to be so great an evil, as we pre- 
tend it is, it would exceedingly embarrass them ; therefore they 
labour to smooth the matter by telling us, that either it is no evil, 
or one of not so great consideration, as is commonly imagined : but 
the wildness and unreasonableness of this attempt will be easily 
shewn, by a consideration of the evil of sin. It is not my design 
to write largely on this head, but only to condescend on a few of 
those considerations, whereon we insist for proving sin to be ex-^. 
ceeding siiifid : which, although they are built on rational grounds 
yet we are led to them by the assistance of revealed light. 

1 . Sin is a transgression of a law, the highest law, the law of 
the supreme and righteous Governor of the world. Where there is 
no law, there is no ti^ansgression. And such as the law is, such 
is the transgression. There is no more just way of measuring the 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 129 



«vil of sin, than by considering the law it violates. The law bears 
the impress of the highest authority, that of the Supreme Ruler 
of the Universe. Every transgression must therefore import, if 
not a contempt, yet certainly a want of due regard to this author- 
ity, wliich, how criminal it is in man, who is as to being, preserva- 
tion and well-being, every way dependent, is easily understood. — 
Moreover, this law is not a mere arbitrary appointment, but such 
as is the necessary result of the nature of God and man ; and 
therefore the violation of it, imports no less, than an accusation of 
the rectitude of God*s nature, whence the law results ; and charges 
unsuitableness thereto, upon the nature of man, as being so 
made, that, without wrong to itself, it cannot be subject to the 
rule of God's government. And who sees not how deeply this re- 
jflects on God ? 

2. Sin contradicts the great design of man's being. God made 
us, and not we ourselves. It is blasphemy to alledge, that infinite 
wisdom made so noble a creature as man without design. Nor can 
it reasonably be pretended, that the chief aim of God in making 
him was any other, than his having the self-satisfaction of having 
acted as became him, and having made a work every way worthy 
of his wisdom and holiness. And since man also was capable of 
proposing designs, it is foolish to imagine, that God either could 
or would allow him to make any other his chief end than the plea- 
sure of God ; or acting so as to make it appear that he was every 
way worthy of his Author. But when man sins he plainly coun- 
teracts what God designed, and he was obliged to design ; for he 
pleases not God, but himself, and this is doing what in him lies to 
frustrate God of the design he had in his work, and debase the 
being and powers given him for the honor of God by employing 
them against him, and using them in contradiction to his declared 
will. 

3. Sin misrepresents God. The works of God bear an impress 
of God's wisdom and power. Man only was made capable of repre- 
senting his moral perfections, his holiness, justice, truth, and the 
like. But when he sins, he not only fails of his duty, but really 
misrepresents God his maker, as one who approves sin, that is di- 
rectly cross to his will, which is ever congruous to the holiness of 
his nature ; or, at least, as one, who either wants will or power to 
crush the contravener ; and so he is represented either as unholy, 
or impotent ; or one, who can tamely allow his will to be counter- 
acted by a creature that he has made and sustains. But what hor- 
rid reflections are these on the holy God ? 

4. Sin accuses God of want of wisdom and goodness in appoint- 
ing laws which were not for his creature's good, and he could not 
obey without detriment ; of envy, in barring the creature by a law, 
from that which is necessary to his happiness ; of insuflSciency, to 

17 



130 



AN INdUIRY INTO THE 



satisfj the creature he has made, while he is obliged to seek for 
that elsewhere, which is not to be found in him, in the way of obe- 
dience ; and of folly, in making such a law, as cannot be expected 
to be obeyed, in regard the creature subjected to it, gains more by 
breaking than by keeping of it. 

Finally, to crown all, sin dethrones God, and sets the creature 
in his room. The honor of God's law and authority, and the 
sinner's good, are wickedly supposed to be inconsistent, and tlie 
latter is preferred. The will of the Creator and creature cross 
one another, and the creature's will is preferred. The friendship, 
favour, and sufficiency of Deity is laid in balance against some 
other imaginary good, and decision is given against God. These 
are a few of the many evils of sin. They are not strained ones. 
This is not a rhetorical declamation against sin, wherein things are 
unjustly aggravated to raise odium against it ; but a plain account 
of a few of the evils of it, which yet is infinitely shor* of what 
the case would admit. But who can fully represent the evil that 
strikes against infinite goodness, holiness, justice, wisdom, and 
supreme authority ? Who can unfold its aggravations, save he who 
knows what God is, and what he is to man, and what man is, and 
how many ways he is dependent on, subject, obliged and indebted 
to God ? Well therefore may sin be said to have an infinity of evil 
in it. 

The Deists, to evade the difficulties arising from this evil of sin, 
take different courses. Some plainly deny any such thing as evil, 
or that there is any thing morally good or bad. Thomas Aiken- 
head, who was executed at Edinburgh, January 8, 1697, for his 
blasphemies, in his paper he delivered from the scaffold, tells us 
what his thoughts were in this matter, and upon what grounds they 
were built. W hen in his rational inquiries he came to consider, 
whether we were capable of offending God, he tells us, " That 
" after much pondering and serious consideration, he concluded 
" the negative." The famed Mr. Hobbs was not of a very differ- 
ent mind, for he plainly asserts, " That there is nothing good or 
" evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally 
" just or unjust : but all things are to be measured by what every 
" man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government ; and by the 
" laws of society, where there is one." And elsewhere, " Before 
" men entered into a state of civil government, there was not any 

thing just or unjust, forasmuch as just and unjust are the rela- 
" tives of human laws ; every action being in itself indifferent." 
And whether Spinoza was not of the same mind, is left to those to 
judge, who have time and leisure to trace his meaning, in his ob- 
scure and designedly involved way of writing. But surely this 
proposition in his Atheistical ethicks looks very like it ; " Si ho- 
" mines liberi nascerentur (liber mitem est juxta Spinozam, qui 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 131 



secundum ductum*vel ex ductii rationis agit ) nullum boni Sr mali 
« formarent conceptum, quamdiu liberi essent."^ Mr. Hobbs 
has been learnedly confuted by many, such as Dr. Cumberland, 
Mr. Tyrell, and almost all who write of the law of nature. Spi- 
noza has likewise been examined by Wittichius and many others. 
The first, viz. T'homas Aikenhead, his grounds I shall purpose 
and examine. 

The first in his own words runs thus, " I thought, says he, a 
« great part of morality, if not all, proceeded ex arbitrio homi- 
" num,-f as of that of a kingdom, or commonwealth, or what most 
" men think convenient for such and such ends, and these ends 
" are always terminated upon being congruous to the nature of 
" things ; now we see that according to men's fancies, things are 
" congruous or incongruous to their natures, if not to the body, 

yet to the thinking faculty." 

The sum of this confused discourse, which probably he learned 
from Hobbs, amounts to this : God has fixed no law to our moral 
actions, by which they are to be regulated. These which are 
called moral laws, are only the determinations of governments, or 
the concurring judgment of men, concerning what they think 
meet to be done for their own ends. That which some judge 
meet and congruous, others may find unsuitable to their nature 
and ends, and so are not obliged to obey. But 1 . A re not all 
these ungrounded assertions, whereof no proof is offered, but the 
author's deluded fancy ? Has it not been irrefragably demonstrated 
by as many as discourse of moral good and evil, that antecedently 
to any government among men, we are under a law, the law of 
nature, and that this is the will of God. 2. If all these had kept 
silence, does not the thing itself speak ? What can be more evi- 
dent, than that there is a law of nature, and that this is the law of 
God ? We are certain, that we are made of rational natures, capa- 
ble of laws and government. We are no less sure that God made 
us, and made us so. It is self-evident, that to him who made us, 
it belongs to govern, and dispose of us to those ends for which we 
vvere made. And we by our very beings are bound to obey, sub- 
mit, and subject ourselves to his will and pleasure, who made us 
and on whom we every way depend, and therefore his will, if he 
make it known, is a law, and the highest law to us. Again, it is 
clear that this reason, if we attend to it, tells us that some things 
are to be done, and some things left undone ; such as these, that 
we are to serve, love, obey and honor him that made us, upholds 
us, and on whom we every way depend ; that we are to carry to- 

* " If men were bom free (and he is free according to Spinoza, who acts 
" according- to the guidance of reason) they would form no conception of 
" good or evil, as long as they were free." 

t " From the v^ill of man.'^ 



132 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



ward our feilow-creatures, as it becomes those, who have th« 
same original with us, who are subjected to the same rule, are 
obliged to pursue the same ends ; and that we are to dispose o four- 
selves as the author of our nature allows us. These are all, if not^ 
self-evident, yet next to it, and easily deducible from principles 
that are so. Further, the reason that is implanted in us by God, 
tells us so, we are to take what it leads us to, while duly used, as 
the will of God, and so a law to us, " For whatever judgment 
" God makes a man with, concerning either himself, or other 
things, it is God's judgment, and whatever is his judgment is a 
law to man ; nor can he neglect or oppose it without sin, being 
in his existence made with a necessary subjection to God, Such 
*^ and such dictates being the natural operations of our minds, the 
being and essential constitution of which, in right reasoning, we 
owe to God ; we cannot but esteem them the voice of God 
within us, and consequently his law to us."^ 
"What he tells us of men's different apprehensions, about what 
is right or wrong makes nothing to the purpose. That only shews 
that in many instances we are in the dark as to what is good and 
evil, which is granted ; but will not infer that there is no fixed 
measure of good and evil. In many general truths, all who apply 
themselves to think, understand the terms, and have the truths 
proposed, do agree. And perhaps, all that is knowable of our du^ 
ty by the light of nature, is deducible from such principles of 
morality, as all rational men who have them fairiy proposed to 
them, must assent to. And deductions from laws, when duly 
made, are of equal authority with the principles from which they 
are inferred. And finally, when men, in pursuance of their per- 
verse natures, follow what is cross to those dictates of reason, they 
are condemned by their consciences, which shews them under the 
obligation of a law, and that acting in a congruity to their natures 
as corrupt, is not the standard they are obliged to walk by, since 
their own reason checks them for doing it. They who would de- 
sire to have this matter fully discoursed, may read others who 
Lave done it designedly, of whom there is great plenty. 

His second reason runs thus : *' Also, we do not know what is 
good or evil in itself, if not thus ; whatsoever can be attributed 
" to God, that is good ; and what cannot, is evil. And we know 
" not what can be attributed to God, but such things as by a de- 
" duction we ascribe to him, we call perfect, and such as we deny 
" to be in him, we call imperfect, and so we must ignorantly com- 
*' mit a circle. There is no other notion of things in themselvea 
good or evil." 

* Sir Charles Wolseley's Scripture Belief, page 52, 33.- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 133 



It is much harder to find the sense of these words, if they have 
any, than to answer the argument. The design of it is to prove 
that there is no standard whereljy we may judge what is good and 
what is evil. The force of the argument amounts to this, that 
there is no way how we come- to know any thing to be good, but 
by this, that it may be ascribed to God. But we cannot know 
whether it is to be ascribed to God, unless we know that it is per- 
fect or good. 

This is thin sophistry, which I might easily expose, were it to 
any purpose to discover the weakness of that, which its author 
was ashamed of and disowned. As to the first proposition, " that 
there is no other way to know whether any thing be good or evil, 
but this, that it can or cannot be ascribed to God." 1. The com- 
plex proposition is false ; for there are other ways whereby we 
may know things to be good or evil. And this holds whether we 
take it in a physical or moral sense. We know that to be morally 
good which God enjoins us to do. We know the will of God in 
some instances, from the nature God has given us ; and from these 
instances our reason can infer others. As to physical good, we 
know things to be good or perfect, by acquaintance with the nature 
of things, and by the self-evident notions of perfection : for there 
are some things, such as dependence, subjection, and the like, 
which without any reasoning about the matter, we understand to 
be imperfect or perfect. As soon as we understand the terms, and 
know that a perfection is that which it is better for any being to 
have than to want : and then what these particular words, depen- 
dence, subjection, &c. signify. This alone overthrows his whole 
argument. 2. The maxim which he fixes as a standard, that it is 
good which may be ascribed to God, and that is not good which 
may not be ascribed to him ; if it is taken in its full extent, it is 
false as to moral good, of which the only question is : for it is cer- 
tain, that it is good for man to be a dependent, a subject, &c. 
which cannot be ascribed to God, If it is taken in a physical 
sense, it is not to the purpose ; and besides, it would even in this 
sense need some caution. 

As to his other proposition, " That we cannot otherwise knotr 
what is to be ascribed to God, than by knowing that it is good or 
perfect," it can scarcely be supposed to speak of good in a moral 
sense ; and in any other sense it is impertinent. If it is under- 
istood in a moral sense it is likewise false, for we may know that 
things which are not in their own nature moral perfections, belong 
to God, such as power, omnipresence, &c. If it be understood 
in any other sense, we have nothing to do with it. 

The next head that he adds is, " That all men will confess that 
any thing may be morally evil and good also, and consequently 
any thing decent or indecent, moral or immoral. Neitlier, 



134 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



« though there were things in themselves evil, (if we do not ap- 

prehend other things instead of them) can we have any inclina- 
« tion thereunto ? Otherwise the will could wish evil." 

But 1. Who will grant him (in any other sense that will be 
subservient to his purpose) that all actions are indifferent ? I know 
none but men of his own principles. 2. As for what he pre- 
tends, that we cannot incline to that which is in its own nature g 
evil, unless it be under the notion of good, I see not what this'H 
says for him ; it is enough that we can do that action which is 
evil and prohibited, yea, and which we know is prohibited, to con- 
stitute sin and make the sinner deeply guilty. 

But not to insist any further on this inconsiderable trifler, whose 
undigested notions scarce deserve the consideration we have given 
them ; and much less did they become the awful gravity of the 
place where they were delivered. There are others of the deists 
who think it not safe to venture thus far : because in effect this 
overthrows all religion and establishes plain atheism : yet they 
may mince the matter and lessen sin as much as they can. 

Herbert goes this way, telling us the sinner's excuse, that "1. 
*' Homines sjint natura sua fragiles peccatoque obnoxii. 2. 

Peccata hominum non tarn in Dei contumeliam^ quam in pro* 
" priam utilitatem, sub boni alicujus apparentis obtentu fieri pie-' 
*' rumque ; ac licet in eo homines fallerentur, nihil tamen infen- 

so in Deum animo patratum esse"^ That is, " Men are by 
" nature frail and liable to sin : and they do not sin out of con- 
" tempt of God, but for their own profit, while sin appears un- 

der the shew of good. And although in this men are deceiv- 
" ed, yet there is nothing done with any ill design against God.'* 

A. W. in his letter to Charles Blount, pleads, " That though 
" the offence is committed against an infinite being, we are but 
" finite creatures, who commit sin."f 

But now, as to the first of these reasons and excuses, I fear, if 
it plead any thing, it casts the fault over on God. Are we to ex- 
cuse ourselves from our frailty ? Well, either we are made so frail 
that we are not able to obey, or we are not ; if we are able to 
obey, then where is the excuse when God requires no more of 
us than he gave us power to perform ? If we are not able, then 
how came God to subject us to a law we were not able to obey ? 
If we have rendered ourselves unable, is not this our fault ? 

As to the second, " that we do not sin out of contempt of the 
Deity, but for our own advantage." I answer, 1. The princi- 
ple that the sinner goes on, according to this apology made for 
him, viz. That the thing he does, though it crosses the law of 
God, yet makes for his own advantage, is highly injurious to, and 

* De Relig-. Gentilium, Cap. 5. page 199. 
t Oracles of Reason, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 135 



blasphemous against God : for it supposes that God has barred 
man from what contributes to his happiness, and supposes that 
more advantage is to be had by disobedience, which is a high ag- 
gravation of the fault, 2. I will not grant him, that there is no 
opposition in the heart to God. What though there be not plain, 
declared, direct and open hostility ; yet there is an alienation of 
affection, aversion from converse with, and a neglect of God to be 
found with all in more or less, of which their actions are a suffi- 
cient proof. 

As to the third, " that an offence, though against an infinite 
God, is lessened by the consideration of the sinner's being finite 
I answer, I. This excuse pleads for all sin alike : for let the sin- 
ner sin never so deeply, yet he is finite still. 2. If this be well 
considered, it is perifectly ridiculous : for the measure of sin, its 
greatness is not to be taken this way, but the contrary ; for 
provided the object against whom it is committed is infinite, the 
meaner the person is that commits it, the greater still is the 
fault. 

But in very deed, all these attempts to extenuate sin, as they 
are useless to sinners, who are not judged by man, but God, and 
not to be dealt with according to the estimate he makes, but that 
which God makes of sin ; so likewise they smell rank of the 
want of a due regard for the honor of the Deity, and are of the 
worst consequences to the world, since they tend to encourage 
sin, open a door to impiety, and embolden sinners to go on in 
courses they too much incline to. Besides, such excuses for sin 
do but ill become persons who make such an horrible out-cry 
against the doctrine of satisfaction upon all occasions, as having a 
tendency to make forgiveness cheap in sinner's eyes, and to em- 
bolden men to sin without fear. May not the charge be here re- 
torted ? Who gives the greatest encouragement to sin, he that 
asserts the necessity of a satisfaction, or he who extenuates sin to 
that degree as to encourage the sinner to hope he may get 
off without a satisfaction ? I shall, to what has been said, subjoin 
a few words from a late discourse. If the quotation seem long, 
the excellency of it will easily excuse it ; besides, it is so full to 
the purpose, and leads so directly to that which is the design of 
what has hitherto been said. " Furthermore, it is to be consid- 
" ered, that the rights of the divine government ; the quality and 
" measures of offences committed against it ; and when or upon 
" what terms they may be remitted ; or in what case it may be 
" congruous to the dignity of that government, to recede from such 
*^ rights, are matters of so high a nature, that it becomes us to be 

very sparing in making any estimate about them, especially a 
" diminishing one. Even among men, how sacred things are ma- 
" jesty and the rights of government ? And how much above the 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



«* reach of a vulgar judgment ? Suppose a company of pea- 
*' sants that understand Httle more than what is within the com- 
^' pass of their mattock, plough and shoveJ, should take upon 
" them to judge of the rights of their prince, and make an esti- 
" mate of the measure of offences, committed against the majes- 
" ty and dignity of government, how competent judges would we 
*' think them ? And will we not acknowledge the most refined 
" human understanding as incompetent to judge of the rights of 
" the divine government ? Or measure the injuriousness of the 
" offence done against it, as the meanest peasant to make an esti- 
" mate of these matters in a human government ? If only the 
" reputation be wronged of a person of a better quality, how 
" strictly is it insisted on, to have the matter tried by his peers, 
" or persons of an equal rank, such as are capable of understand- 
" ing honour and reputation ! How would it be resented, that 
" an aflfront put upon a nobleman, should be commited to the judg- 
" ment of smiths and coblers, especially if they were participes 

criminiSy^ and as well parties as judges ? 

" When the regalia\ of the great Ruler and Lord of heaven 
*' and earth are invaded, his temple violated, his presence de- 
" spised, his image torn down thence and defaced : Who among 
" the sons of men are either great, or knowing, or innocent enough 
" to judge of the offence and wrong ? Or how fit it is, that it be 

remitted without recompence ? Or what recompence would be 
" proportionable ? How supposable is it, that there may be con- 
" gruities in this matter, obvious to the divine understanding, 
" which infinitely exceed the measure of ours." J 

From what has been said, it is easy to understand the import- 
ance of the case. All mankind are involved in sin, lie under this 
dreadful guilt, and that not in one, but in many instances. Now 
if they are not sure that it may be removed, and know not in what 
way this is to be done ; they must either not take up the case, 
or they must be under continual disquietments, dread the issue, 
and fear divine resentments. They can never expect any re- 
ward for obedience, and consequently they must languish in it, 
and so all religion that can be available is lost. 

S E C T. 11. 

Shewing the darkness of Nature's Light as to Pardon, 

THE importance of the case being thus cleared, we now pro- 
ceed to demonstrate the insufficiency of nature's light to help 

• " Sharers in the crime." 
t Royal prerogatives.'* 

i Dr. How's Living- Temple, Part 2. pa.?e 23r, 238, 239. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 137 



out of this strait. And that we may without fear assert it so, is 
evident from the ensuing considerations : 

1. That light which failed men so far, as to a discovery of the 
strait, is not likely to help them out of it. If we understand not 
where the difficulty lies, and how great it is, we are never like- 
ly to solve it. Now it is undeniable, that a great part of the 
world understood not the evil of sin, or of how vast a conse- 
quence it was to be assured about the pardon of it. The preva- 
lent darkness of their minds about the nature, holiness and jus- 
tice of the Deity ; their own natures and relation to Iiim ; their 
ignorance of the nature of sin ; the commonness of it in the 
world ; their strong inclinations to it, and other things of a like 
nature, kept them from apprehending the difficulty of the case. 
But above all, the best moralists amongst the philosophers, such 
as Socrates and Plato, seemed utterly unconcerned. And the 
reason is plain, their pride blinded them so, that they idolized 
their own virtues, and made no reckoning of their sins. 

2. They who had a little more concern about sin, saw some- 
what of the difficulty of this matter, but found themselves at a 
loss what way to relieve themselves : and therefore they had re- 
course, some to philosophy, music and mathematics, for the purga- 
tion of their souls ; and others to lustrations, sacrifices, and diverse 
washings, and I do not know what other fancies, which had no 
manner of foundation in reason, no suitableness to the nature of 
the difficulty, no divine warrant, and therefore were never able to 
satisfy the conscience, as to the sinner's acceptance with God, and 
the removal of the guilt. These being only the productions of 
their own imaginations, notwithstanding of all these, their fears 
continued, and they remained under apprehensions that even 
death should not terminate their miseries, as Lucretius himself 
sings : 

At mens sibl conscla facti, 

Przemetuens adhibet stimulos, terretque flagellls, 
Nec videt interea, qui terminus esse malorum 
Possit, nec qui sit panarum denique finis, 
Atque eadem metuit magis hsec in morte gravescant.* 

3. They who either thought somewhat deeper of the case, or 
at least seemed to do so, especially at times when the impressions 
they had of divine justice were quickened by some terrible 
plagues or judgments, had recourse to things that were so far from 
relieving, that they really increased the guilt, I mean that abomina- 

* " But the mind conscious to itself of actual guilt, by fearing punish- 
* * ment applies stings to itself and terrifies itself with wliips : nor does it 
** see in the mean time how any bounds can be set to its sufferings, nor what 

will at last be the end of its punishment, and fears lest these same sutFe^r- 
** ings should grow more grievous at death," 

la 



188 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



ble custom of human sacrifices. This cruel custom almost uni- 
versally obtained in the world, if we may believe either profane 
or sacred records ; of which Dr. Owen in his treatise of Vin- 
dictive Justice gives many instances. They not only sacrificed 
men, but even multitudes of them. The instances of this kind 
in the sacred records are known. As to others, Ditmarus quoted 
by Dr. Owen tells us : " That the Normans and Danes, every 
" year in the month of January did sacrifice to their gods ninety- 
" nine men, ns many horses, dogs and cocks."* Clemens Alex- 
andrianus quoted by the same author, tells what the usage of the na- 
tions in this matter was, and on what occasion — " Jam vero cum 
" civitates Sr gentes ianquam pestes invasissent, sava postularnnt 
" libamina ; 8r Aristommes quidem Messenius, Ithometce Jovi, 
" trecentos mactavH, se tot Sc tales rite sacrificare existimans, in 
" quibus etiam Theopompus rex Lacedeemonwn erat, praclara 
" victima. Taiiri autem populi, qui habitabant circa Tauri- 
" cam Chersonesum, quoscunque hospites apud se ceperint, Dian(Z 
" Taiiriccc eos sfatim sacrificant (hide inkospitalia littora.J 
" H^c tua sacrificia Euripides in scena tragice dccantat"-f Here 
are no less than three hundred sacrificed at once, and among them 
a king. Here are strangers sacrificed. And any one that wil! 
read there will find how usual it was to sacrifice their children and 
nearest relations. The custom is barbarous, and fully speaks out 
the despair of men awakened to a serious consideration of sin, and 
the darkness of nature's light. If it could have pointed to any 
other thing that could quiet the conscience, civilized nations, such 
as those among whom this custom did prevail, would never have 
had recourse to it. 

4. It is no wonder that men should be brought to such straits ; 
for they wanted the knowledge of many things, that were of ab- 
solute necessity to make them once so much as understand what a 
case they were in. They knew not, nor, as^ has been proved 
could they know the rise of sin, and therefore could not know 
what estimate to make of it, nor what God would make of it.— 
They knew neither the extent of the mercy nor justice of God, 
without which it was impossible to determine in the case. 

5. IThe questions that must be resolved before the mind of a 
sinner, that once understands his state, can be satisfied, are so ma-. 



* Dr. Owen de Justitia Vindicatrice, Cap. 4, page 69. 

f *' But when, like the plag-ue, they had over-run all states and nation^ 
they required cruel offering's. Aristomenes, the Messenian, sacrificed 
" three hundred men to Jupiter Ithoraetes, among- whom likewise was Theo- 
" pcmpus kin^of the Lacedemonians, an illustrious victim. And the Tauri, 
" a nation in Crim Tartary, whenever they caug^ht any strangers among' them, 
they immediately sacrificed them to Diana Taurica, whence their shore* 
" were proverbially stiled irJiospitable. Euripides relates these sacrifices of 
'* yours in a trag-ical manner on the stage.** 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 139 



ay, so intricate, and so palpably above the reach of unenlightened 
reason, that it is foolish to pretend that nature's light will or can 
satisfy the mind of any man in the case. Men may pretend what 
they will, who either do not take up tJie case, or who are other- 
wise themselves satisfied by divine revelation ; but they who se- 
riously, and without partiality or prejudice view the case, Avill have 
other thoughts. Who will give me rational satisfaction as to those 
and the like questions ? Whether, considering the greatness of 
sin, the justice, wisdom and hohness of God, and the honor of his 
government, it is consistent to pardon any sin ? If it be, whether he 
will pardon all, many or few sins ? What, or what degrees of sin 
he will forgive ? Whether he will pardon without any reparation 
for the honor of his laws or not ? Upon what, or what terms he 
will do it ? If he require reparation, what reparation, and by 
whom is it to be performed ? How shall we know that he has 
pardoned ? If he pardon, whether will he remit all punishment due 
to sin, or how much ? Whether will he merely pardon, or will 
he over and above re-admit the sinner to grace, and to as entire fa- 
vor as before he sinned ? Whether will he not only pardon, but 
reward the sinner's imperfect obedience ? Unless all of these are 
resolved, the difficulty is not loosed. And who will undertake to 
resolve them and give rational satisfaction that understands the 
case. 

6. These questions are not only above the reach of man ; but 
they belong not to him to judge and decide them. The offence is 
committed against God. He alone understands vi^hat the con- 
tempt of his authority, the disorder brought into his government 
by sin, and the disobedience of his creature amounts unto ; what 
is fit to be done in the case, he alone is judge, at his tribunal it is 
to be tried. Man is too ignorant, too guilty and too partial in his 
own favor to be allowed to judge ? Now where are the decisions 
of God in the case to be found ? Are they legible in the work* 
of creation or providence, or consciences of men T In the works 
of creation it cannot be pretended. The works of providence 
afford innumerable instances of his justice, some of his forbear- 
ing sinners, even while they continue in their sin, and loading 
them with outward effects of his bounty : But where is 
the sinner, of whom we can say, God has forgiven liira ? Or said 
that he will forgive ? The consciences of men read them some- 
times sad lectures of justice ; but never, if they be not informed 
from revelation, any of forgiveness. 

7. All the pretences that are offered for relief in this case, are 
absurd, vain and insignificant. They are all reducible to this one 
head. That God is infinitely merciful ; but this gives not the 
least relief. For, 



140 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE l 

1. I ask, must God then of necessity exercise mercy, or is the 
egress and exercise of this mercy necessary ? If it is not, but 
still remains arbitrary, and in the pleasure of God whether he will 
pardon or not ; then I inquire, where is the relief pretended ? 
Does it not all vanish ? Are we not as much at a loss as before, 
whether he will pardon, or how far, or upon what terms ? If it is 
necessary in its egress, then I enquire, how^ is this reconcileable 
with the notion of mercy, that seems to respect voluntary and un- 
deserved acts of favor shown to them, to whom God was not 
obliged to show any ? How is this reconcileable to or consistent 
with justice, which is exercised in punishing sinners? By what 
arguments can this be made appear ? Whence is it that there 
are so many acts of justice, and no instances known to, or know- 
able by the light of nature, of God's having pardoned any ? 

2. Mercy is either unlimited in its egress or it is not. If it is 
limited and cannot be exercised, but upon such and such provisos 
as make the exercise of it consistent with God's aversion to sin, 
and with the regard he has for the authority of his laws, the 
concern he has for the honor of his government, and his justice, 
wisdom and holiness, then we are where we were before : For 
who can tell whether it be consistent with these things to pardon ? 
In what case and upon what provisos : if it is not limited to any 
such qualifications, then I desire to know, how this is reconcilea- 
ble to his nature ? How is such mercy consistent with any exer- 
cise of justice at all ? What account can be given of the direful 
effects of justice, whereof the world is full ? By what means can 
it be reconciled to the holiness of God's nature to pardon impeni- 
tent sinners ? What need is there for any to guard against sin, 
since upon this supposition, all sin shall be forgiven ? 

3. Is infinite mercy universal in its extent ? If it is not, then I 
desire to know, what sins, what sinners shall be pardoned ? How 
shall any know whether his sins are the sins that are to be pardon- 
ed ? If it is universal in its extent, and all sins must be pardoned ; 
then is there not a door opened for all sin ? How can this be pro- 
ven ? Why have we no evidence of this in God's providential 
dealing? "VV.-snce have we so many evidences of the contrary ? 
If it is said that mercy must more or less be exercised towards 
all, then I inquire, who tells us so ? How far shall it be exercised ? 
W^ill it pardon all or part ? Upon what terms ? Will it not only 
pardon, but remunerate the guilty ? 

4. I inquire who are the proper objects of mercy ? Or what is 
requisite to constitute the proper object of it ? Amongst men, the 
proper object of that mercy w^hich belongs to governors, is not sin 
and misery. To spare and pardon upon this score only, is a plain 
vice in men, especially in governors. But the object of mercy is 
such sin and misery, as is consistent with the honor and good of 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 141 



the governor, government and the governed to pardon. Now, if 
it be thus in this case, then I see nothing, but we are where we 
were, and are plunged into all our difficulties ; and why it should 
not be thus, I see no reason. For there is no man who knows 
what God is, what sin is, what justice is, that will say it is consis- 
tent with the honor, justice, wisdom and holiness of God to par- 
don impenitent sinners, going on in their sins. And when they 
say, that his mercy only requires him to pardon penitent sinners, 
then this plainly says, that the exercise of his mercy is confined 
to those who are its proper objects, that is, not to miserable sin- 
ners, for the impenitent are most so ; but to those whom he may 
spajre, in a decorum to his government and congruity to his other 
perfections. And indeed this is what cannot in reason be denied : 
and when it is granted, then it remains a question, not yet decided, 
nor indeed determinable by reason, whether repentance alone is 
sufficient to this purpose ? 

5. The case of justice and mercy are quite different as to their 
egress : For justice has respect to a fixed rule, an universal rule, 
and requires that regard be had to it, in dealing with all that are 
under that rule : whereas mercy only is conversant about particu- 
lar instances, according to the wisdom and pleasure of him in whom 
it resides. 

6, The infiniteness of either of these attributes, neither requires 
nor admits, that there be infinite numbers of instances of either : 
but that the acts of justice and mercy be such as becomes the 
infinite nature of God, when it is proper to exercise them, or 
when the wisdom, holiness, justice or mercy of God require that 
they be exercised. 

But the Deists object, 1. " That upon supposition that God will 
*^ not pardon sin, there is no use of his mercy.""^ I answer, we 
do not say he will not pardon sin ; but we say, nature's light can- 
not tell whether he will pardon it or not, or what is the case where- 
in mercy takes place. We own its use, but we say, nature's light 
cannot tell when and how it is proper to exercise it. 

Again, it is pretended, " That God is infinitely merciful, then 
" he must as the least of its operations pardon the greatest of 
" sins."f This is plainly denied, and we have told wherefore 
above. 

It is further pretended, " That justice has done its business, 
when it has condemned the sinner, and then mercy brings hira 
off J but this is gross ignorance. It belongs as much to jus- 
tice to take care that its sentence be executed, as to see it passed. 

Again, it is urged, " That though God be infinitely just as well 
" as merciful, yet his justice is only as inherent, not as extensive 



* Aikenhead's Speech. 



t Ibid. 



+ Ibid. 



142 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

as his5 mercy toward us : for we are punished only according 
" our deservings, but mercy is shown us above our deservings.""^ 
The first part is false. The very contrary assertion, viz. that 
justice is more extensive, is true, as has been cleared above, if we 
respect the number of objects. The proof of it is a plain sophism. 
For 1. It is not true that mercy bestows its effects, which in their 
nature are above our deservings, to more persons than justice gives 
its effects, which are according to desert. 2. The effects of 
mercy are not more above deserving, than the effects of justice 
are according to it. 3. The effects of justice are with infinite ex^ 
actness proportioned to deservings. And all that can be said is, 
that the effects of mercy are suited to the nature of infinite mercy, 
not that they are given to infinite number of persons, or infinite 
degi'ees. 

Further, it is pretended, " That God w?th whom we have to 
^' do, is a Father who will not animadvert severely upon his peni- 
" tent son."f I answer, as he is a father, so he is a righteous 
judge. Further, though he be a father, yet he is not such a father 
as men are, infirm, liable to failings, that needs his children, that 
may give them occasion or temptation to offend, that is of the 
same nature with them. And hence no firm argument can be in- 
ferred from any thing that is known in this matter by the light of 
nature. Besides, the meanest offence against God is more atro- 
cious, than the greatest offence against one's natural father. For 
which nevertheless there is no forgiveness, but punishment without 
mercy, by the law of nations and nature. 

Finally, all these are but generals, that may well raise suspi- 
cions in the minds of men, but can never give particular satisfac- 
tion to any one man, as to his case, or any one of the particular 
difficulties that have been mentioned. They no more satisfy, than 
those notions that generally prevailed, of the placability of the 
Deity, which had their rise at first from revelation, were continued 
by the necessity of sinners, v» ho having challenges for sin, behoov- 
ed to take sanctuary some where, and handed down by tradition : 
But being general, and leaving men at a loss about the means of 
atoning the Deity, were really of no use if not to keep men from 
funning into downright despair, and keep them up in attendance 
upon somewhat that looked like religion ; but whereon the minds 
©f such as really understood any thing of the case, could never 
find satisfaction. 

There is only one thing that seems of any moment, that is ob- 
jected to all this ; and that is, that nature's light which discovers 
the sore, discovers a salve for it, to wit, repentance, to which we 



* A. W. in his Letter, Oracles of Reason. 

•j Blount's Relig. Laici. pag^e69. Herbert de Reliff. G«n. pa»e 199 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 143 



shall answer in the following section, that is peculiarly designed to 
consider this. 

Sect. III. 

Wherein it is inquired whelher Repentance is sufficient to atone for 
Sin.^ How far Nature^ s Light enables to it? What assurance 
Nature's Light gives of Pardon upon Repentance. 

It now remains that we consider the only exception, which is of 
moment, and that is, that repentance is a sufficient atonement, that 
nature's light discovers this, and so we are not left without relief. 
This is the more considerable that several Christians, yea divines 
of great note, and some of them deservedly of high esteem, have 
seen meet, in compliance with their several hypotheses in divinity, 
to drop assertions that seem to favour this. We shall first pro* 
pose their opinions, who assert this, and then consider it. 

The Deists go all this way as one man. I shall offer one for all, 
and it is Charles Blount, who not only speaks the sense, but trans- 
lates the very words of the learned lord Herbert. He tells us, 
then, That repentance is the only knov/n and public means, 
" which on our part is required for satisfying the divine justice, 

and returning to the right way of serving God."^ And for 
clearing this, he premises to it these ensuing considerations, 
" ] . That he that judgeth man is his Father, and doth look on 
" him as a frail creature, obnoxious to sin. 2. That he generally 

finds men sin, rather out of frailty, than out of any desire to 
" offend his divine Majesty. 3. That if man had been made in- 
" wardly prone to sin, and yet destitute of all inward means to 
" return to him again, he had been not only remediless in himself, 
" but more miserable, than it could be supposed an infinite Good- 
" ness did at first create, and doth still perpetuate human kind. — 

4. That man can do no more on his part, for the satisfying of 
" divine justice, than to be heartily sorry and repent him of his 

sins, as well as to endeavor, through his grace, to return to the 
" right way, from which through his transgression, he had erred : 
" or if this did not suffice for the making of his peace, that the 
" Supreme God by inflicting some temporal punishment in this 
" life, might satisfy his own justice. 5. That if temporal punish- 
" ment in this life, were too little for the sin committed, he might 
" yet inflict a greater punishment hereafter in the other life, with- 
" out giving eternal damnation to those, who (if not for the love 
*' of goodness) yet, at least, upon sense of punishment, would not 
" sin eternally. Notwithstanding, since these things may again be 



Relig'io Laici, page 68, 69, 70. 



144 AN INQUmY INTO THE 

« controverted, I shall insist onlj upon that universally 
« ledged proposition first laid down."^ This proposition, with the 
explications, he translates from Herbert, only has made some 
small additions. ] 

It is no wonder to see those speak so ; but it is a little more odd ■ 
to hear Christians talk so. One who would seem very zealous 
for Christianity tells us, " That the God of patience and conso- 
" lation, who is rich in mercy, would forgive his frail offspring, if 
*• they acknowledge their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their 

transgressions, begged his pardon, and resolved in earnest to 
" conform their actions to this rule, which they owned to be just 
" and right : this way of recouciUation, this hope of atonement, 
" the light of nature revealed to them. He that made use of thi» 
" candle of the Lord, (viz. reason) so far as to find his duty, could 
" not miss to find also the way to reconciliation and forgiveness, 
" when he had failed of his duty."f Much more speaks he to 
the same purpose. 

But it is stranger to hear divines speak so. And yet we find 
one telling us, " That the same light of nature, which declares to 
" us our duty, dictates to us, when we have failed in that duty, 
" to repent and turn to God with trusting to his mercy and par- 
** don, if we do so and not else. We do find it legible in our 
" hearts, that God is good and wisely gracious to pity our infir- 
" mities, to consider our lost estate, and necessary frailty, as that 
" there is a God, and any worship that is at all due to him." J 

To the same purpose the learned Baxter speaks in his Reasons 
of the Christian Religion, Part 1. Chap. 17. Dr. Whichcote in 
his sermon on Acts xii. 38. and others too large to quote. 

But now, with all due deference to those great names, I shall 
take leave to offer the following remarks, wherein I shall clear 
my own mind, and oSer the reasons on which I dissent from 
them. 

I. I observe that the Deists speak more uncertainly about this 
matter ; whereas these Christian writei^ seem more positive. The 
Deists seem not to want their fears that repentance may not serve 
the turn, and therefore they seem willing to admit of temporal 
punishments, and even punishments after time, only they have 
not will to think of eternal punishments ; as we heard from Her- 
bert and Blount, who both speak in the same words on this head. 
But the Christian writers are positive. And I am jealous the 
reason is not, that they saw farther into the light of nature than 
the Deists ; but that they lean more firmly to the scripture reve- 
lation, which assures us that penitent sinners shall be forgiven. — 



* Herhert de Relig". Gentil. page 199. 

t Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, page 255, 256. 

4 Mr, Humphrey's Peaceable Disquisitions, Chap. 14. pa.^e 57*. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 145 



Though J must add, the scripture no where says that penitent 
shiners shall be forgiven upon their penitence, as that which is suf- 
ficient to atone the justice of God. And to speak plainly, howe- 
ver confident those worthy persons are, that they have read (his 
doctrine in the book of nature, I dare be bold to afllriii that they 
had either failed in the discovery, or stammered a little more in 
reading their lesson, if they had not learned it before-hand out of 
the book of the Scriptures ; though the thing seems, when they 
have read it there, to approve itself so much to reason, that rea- 
son cannot but assent to it. It is well observed by one of those 
authors, with whom we now manage this debate, " That when 
" triiths are once known to us, though by traditioii, we are apt to 
*' be favorable to our own parts, and ascribe to our own under- 
*' standing the discovery of what, in truth, we borrowed fsoni 
" other?;, or at least, finding we can prove, what at first we learned 
" from others, we are forward to conclude it an obvious truth, 
" which, if we had sought, we could not have missed. Nothing 
" seems hard to our understandings, that is once known ; and be- 
cause what we see with our own eyes, we are apt to overlook, 
" or forget the help we had from others, who first shewed and 
pointed it out to us, as if we were not at all beholden to them 
for that knowledge ; for knowledge being only of known truths ; 
" we conclude our faculties would have led us into it without any 
assistance ; and that we know these truths by the strength and 
*' native light of our own mind«, as they did, from ^rhom w^e re- 
ceived them by theirs, only they had the luck to be before us. — 
Thus the whole stock of human knowledge is claimed by every 
one, as his private possession, as soon as he (profiting by other's 
discoveries) has got it into his ov/n mind ; and so it is ; but not 
properly by his own single industry, nor of his own acquisition. 
*' He studies, it is true, and takes pains to make a progress in 
" what others have defivered, but their pains were of another 
sort, who first brought those truths to light, which he afterwards 
derives from. them. He that travels the roads now, applauds 
his own strength and legs, that have carried him so far, in such 
" a scantling of time, and ascribes all to his own vigor, little con- 
*' sidering how much he owes to their pains, who cleared the woods, 
drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the ways passable ; 
*' without which he might have toiled much with little progress. — 
** A great many things which w^e have been bred in the belief of 
*^ from our cradles (and are notions grown familiar, and as it were, 
natural to us, under the gospel) we take for unquestionable obvious 
" truths and easily demonstrable, without considering how long w^e 
" might have been in doubt, or in ignorance of them, had revelation 
" been silent. It is no diminishing to revelation, that reason gives 
*^ its suffrage tooto the truths revelation hath discovered. But it is 

19 



146 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



" our mistake to think that because reason confirms them to us, 
" we had the first certain knowledge of them from thence, and in 
" that clear evidence we now possess them."* How applicable 
this excellent discourse is to the case in hand, will appear from 
what we design to subjoin on this head. Though after all, that 
which the scripture delivers, and reason confirms in this case, is 
not, " That repentance is sufficient to atone the justice of God, 
" or that God will pardon a penitent sinner, merely on the account 
" of his penitence," which the Deist's case requires. The scrip- 
tures plainly teach the contrary, and those learned persons, or some 
of them at least who own them, believe according to the scriptures, 
the contrary, which makes a considerable difference betwixt them 
and the Deists ; though in this case, they seem to speak the same 
thiiigs. But that which the scripture asserts, is, " That peni- 
tence is a qualification suitable to a sinner to be pardoned, 
" and that it is not suitable to the wisdom and justice of God 
" to pardon one, who is not sorry for former offences, and resolves 
" to obey for the future."^ Reason confirms this indeed, but it 
is not to the purpose. 

2. But to come a little more close to the purpose ; this repen- 
tance, which is pretended to be sufficient, consists of two parts, 
sorrow for the offence, and a return to obedience. This last part, 
a return to obedience, what is it 1 Nothing, but only a perform- 
ance of the duties we were antecedently bound unto by the law of 
creation, which only receives a new denomination from its relation 
to an antecedent deviation, or sin. This denomination adds no 
new worth to it, nor does the relation whereon it is founded.— 
Wherefore we can never reasonably suppose, that there is any 
great matter in this, that can atone for the transgression. It is 
well if it obtains approbation as a part of our duty. But no rea- 
sonable man can pretend that it atones for any part of our sin. 

3. Though nature's light discovers our obligation to that duty, 
which now, because sin preceded, must be called a return ; yet it 
is a question, if nature's light is able to bring a sinner, that has 
once gone away, to such a return as is necessary. For 1. Yic 
have above proved that nature's light is defective as to motives to 
obedience, as to the discovery of particular duties, and much 
more is it defective as to motives to a return : because there ii 
more required to encourage a sinner to come back, who has once 
offended, than to engage him to continue. There is a discourage- 
ment arising from fear of punishment, and falling short of any re- 
ward he might have expected, upon the account of his sin to be 
removed, and that is not easily done, as shall be shown. 2 Be- 
sides, not only discouragements lie in the w^ay of a return, but 
cross inclinations, aversions from duty, and inclinations to sin. — 



* Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, page 279, 280, 281. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 147 



Now I am not satisfied that nature's light can remove, or direct 
how to remove these ; of which we may speak more fully in the 
next chapter. So that as for this part of repentance we neither 
aee of what use it is as to atonement, nor do we find it clear that 
nature's light can bring any to it. 

4. The stress of the business then must lean on this sorrow for 
by-gone transgressions, that is the other part of the composition. 
But here I am sure it will be readily granted, that every sort of 
sorrow for sin will not serve. If one is only grieved for the loss 
he has sustained, the hazard he has run himself into, and the evil 
he has to suffer, or fears at least for his offence ; this can be avail- 
able to no man. Wherefore though nature's light may bring a 
man to this, and has oft done it, yet this signifies nothing in the 
case. 

5. The sorrow, that only can be pretended, is that which arises 
purely, or at least principally, from concern for the dishonor done 
to God. Now as to this sorrow, it is to be observed, that it is not 
any action of ours done in obedience to any command : but it is a 
passion, in its own nature uneasy, as all sorrow is, though suitable 
to a sinner, and, upon the supposition, that he is so, useful per- 
haps. And it results from the joint influence of prevailing love 
to God, his law and authority, and a clear conviction of sin's hav- 
ing injured his honor, and our being, on this account, obnoxious. 

6. It is not easily to be granted, that nature's light can bring 
any man to this sorrow. Since 1. It is evident that the temper 
men are naturally of, is quite contrary to that which gives rise to 
such a sorrow. We are naturally averse from God, as shall be 
made appear afterwards, and are not under the influence of any 
such prevalent love to him, and it is not easy to prove that na- 
ture's light is able to remove this natural aversion of the heart 
from God : but of this more in the next chapter. 2. God can 
never appear amiable to a sinner, if he is not revealed as one 
ready to forgive. We cannot be sorrowful for our sin, if we are 
not seriously convinced that we have sinned, and see the demerit of 
sin. If we are convinced that we have sinned, and deserve punish= 
ment, we cannot have prevalent love to God, which is requisite to 
give life to this sorrow, make it run in the right channel, and pro- 
ceed on those accounts, which will make it acceptable to God, or 
available to us, unless he appear to us as ready to forgive, which 
nature's light doth not discover. 

7. I doubt if nature's light calls us to repentance. I allow that 
there are several things obvious to nature's light, which may be 
said to drive us to repentance, because they serve to discover to 
us these things whereon this sorrow follows, bind the obligation on 
us to that duty, which, because of the preceding sin is called a 
return, and serve as arguments to enforce the compliance, provided 
we had a call or invitation to return, I mean a new call. For 



148 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



clearing this, we are to observe that, were man innocent, and 
guiJty of no fault, and had his obedierxe no imperfection, neces- 
sarily cleaving to it, and were he under no such inconveniency as 
might make him dread wrath, or fear his obedience might be re- 
jected ; in that case a discovery of the obligation he hes under to 
duty, were a call and invitation sufficient as securing him, at least 
as to the acceptance of his duty. But where there are those 
things in his case, sin and imperfection cleaving to the duty, and 
the performer chargeable with guilt on both those accounts, in or- 
der to engage him to duty, there is requisite a new call or invita- 
tion, securing him against those grounds of fear, and giving him 
ground to expect acceptance. Now it is such a call as this, that 
only can bring the sinner to repentance. And this we deny that 
nature's light gives ; though we own that it discovers many things, 
that may be said in some sense, to lead to repentance : Because, 
upon supposition of such an invitation, they are improveable as ar- 
guments to enforce compliance with duty. Thus, if God invite 
me back again, his goodness discovered in the works of creation 
and providence, invites to go to him, and all the direful evidences 
of his anger against sinners persuade the same thing : and there- 
fore may be said to lead, or rather drive to repentance ; because 
they have a tendency that way in their own nature, and are capa- 
ble of such an improvement ; But still it is only upon the forego- 
ing supposition. 

8. To make this matter yet a little more clear, I grant that the 
light of nature discovers sinful man to be still under an obligation 
to obey God. As long as God is God, and man his creature, man 
is under a tie to subjection, and God has a right to man's obedi- 
ence. This obedience to which man is bound, after once he has 
sinned, must be called a return. Further the light of nature teach- 
es, that if man had yielded perfect obedience, he should not have 
done it in vain. Acceptance, at least, he should have had, and 
what other reward the goodness of God thought meet. And that 
man sustains a great loss by sin, that intervenes betwixt him and 
his expectations from the goodness of God, and besides, exposes 
him to the hazard of his just resentment, which, if it is seen, as 
by nature's light in some measure it may be, will occasion sorrow. 
Further, nature's light will teach that the more deeply we sin, the 
more we have to fear, and therefore out of fear and a regard to 
our own interest and expectation of being freed from those sever- 
er judgments, which a progress in sin draw on men, may be in- 
duced to return. Now all this nature's light discovers : but nei- 
ther is this sor ow, which savours of some regard to ourselves, but 
of little or none to God ; nor this return, which is not that cheer- 
ful, cordial obedience that God requires and accepts, of any avail 
m the case, No man, that knovvs what he says, will pretend, that 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 149 



such a sorrow or such a return is sufficient to atone the justice of 
God for by-gones, or even obtain acceptance for itself, which has 
so much of love to self, and so little of that which respects God. 

9. But the repentance that is available in this case is a sorrow, 
flowing from prevalent love to God, and grieving, if not only, yet 
principally for the wrong done to God, and a cheerful following of 
duty upon prospect of God's being a rewarder of it. Now to call 
or to make up a sufficient invitation to a sinner, to such a repent- 
ance, it is requisite that 1. God be represented in such a way, as 
a sinner that sees himself guilty, can love him, delight in him, and 
draw near to him. But this he can never be, if he is not repre- 
sented as one with whom certainly there is forgiveness, 2. It re- 
quires further, that God be represented as one, who will accept of 
sinners' obedience, notwithstanding of their desert of wrath for 
former disobedience, and this requires still that he be a God that 
forgives. 3. Further, it is requisite, that he be represented as 
one, that will accept of obedience, not only from one that has 
sinned, but that implies sin and imperfection in it. Now this can- 
not be, if he is not known to be one that is plenteous in mercy and 
will abundantly pardon. Now J say the light of nature gives no 
such discovery of God : and therefore gives no call or sufficient 
invitation to his repentance. 

1 0. Nor will it help out here, to say, that the light of nature 
doth represent God as placable, one who may be pacified : for, 
should I grant that it does so, yet this cannot invite to such an 
obedience, so long as 1 . It is left a question, whether he be actu- 
ally r3Conciled, or positively determined to forgive ? 2. Especially 
considering, that he has not pointed to, and positively declared on 
what terms he will be appeased. Yea 3. Since moreover he has 
given no visible instance, knowable by the light of nature, that he 
hap forgiven any particular person. But 4. On the contrary, the 
world is full of the most terrible effiicts of his displeasure, and 
these falling most heavily on the best, even those who go farthest 
in a compliance with duty. In a word, these dark notions of a 
placable God, which yet is the utmost that unenlightened reason 
can pretend to, are utterly insufficient to bring any of the chil- 
dren of men to that repentance we are now in quest of; it is so 
sunk, and as it were quite obscured by cross appearances. And 
all that can reasonably be said, is, that in the providence of God 
there is such a seeming contrariety of good and evil, that men 
know not what to make of it, but are tossed by contrary appear- 
ances. And of this we have a fair acknowledgment by one, who, 
besides that he was a person of great learning, was not only a great 
stickler for the natural discoveries of this placability, but one of 
the first broachers of it, being led to it by the peculiar hypothesis^ 
he maintained and advanced in divinity, I mean the learned Amy- 



150 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



raid- After he has asserted the natural discoveries of this placa- 
bilitj^, and alleged that they lead to repentance, yet subjoins : 
*' But there are (says he) motions in the corrupt nature of man which 

frustrates the effect, if God did not provide for it in another man- 
" ner (that is by revelation.) For man flies from the presence of 
" God through fear of punishment, and cannot hinder the preva- 
" lence of it in his soul ; so that as a man affrighted beholds no- 
" thing stedfastly, but always imagines new occasions of terror, and 
*' represents hideous phantasms to himself ; so we are not able to 
^' allow ourselves leisure to consider attentively this dispensation 

of the goodness of God towards the wicked, nor thereby to as- 

sure ourselves of obtaining mercy and pardon. As a lewd 
" wretch, whose conscience bears him witness of many heinous 

crimes, though he should perceive some connivance in the ma- 
" gistrate for a time, and his judge shew him some countenance, 
" cannot but be distrustful of him, and suspect that he does but 
" defer his punishment to another time, and assuredly reserves it 
" for him ; especially if he hath an opinion that the magistrate is 

Dot such an one as himself, but abhors the wickednesses com- 

mitted by him. Now are we universally thus principled, that as 
" we hate those whom we fear, so we never bear good will toward 
" them of whom we have some diffidence. And the distrusting 
" the good will of any one being a step to fear, is likewise by the 

same reason, a degree of hatred ; unless the distrust proceed 
" to such a measure as to be an absolute fear ; for then the cold- 
" ness of affection is turned into perfect hatred. Wherefore man 
" thus distrusting the good will of God towards him, consequent- 
<* ly can have but a very slight affection to him ; yea, he will even 
" become his enemy in as much as the distrust in this case will 
" be extremely great."^ Thus far he goes. Now methinks this 
quite overthrows the placability he had before asserted discovera- 
ble by the light of nature, at least as to any use it can be supposed 
of for assuring sinners of pardon, or inviting them to repentance. 

1 1 . But to go a step further, I cannot see that the light of na- 
ture is able to give us any assurance of this placability. Where 
is it in the book of nature that we may read this truth, that God 
is placAible ? Is it in the works of creation ? No, this is not pre- 
tended. Nor can it be, they were all absolved and finished be- 
fore the entrance of sin, and cannot be supposed to carry on them 
any impressions of placability to sinners. Is it in the works of 
providence. Yes, here it is pretended. And what is it in the 
works of providence that is alleged to evince this placability ? Is 
it that God spares sinners for some time, and not only so, but be- 
&iows many outward good things on them, whom he spares ? Yes, 



* A;i-iyrald of Religions, Fart 2. Chap. 17. pag-e mihi, 253, 354. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE IMODERN DEISTS. 151 



this is that whereon the whole stress of the business is laid. But 
I cannot see the force of this to assure us that God is placable. 
For 1. It is certain that the nature of the things do not infer cer- 
tainly any such thing. Forbearance is not forgiveness : nor does 
it intimate any design to forgive. It may be exercised, where 
there is a certain design and fixed purpose of punishing. And 
what relation have a few of those outward things, whereby love or 
hatred cannot be known, unto peace and reconciliation with God? 
It is, I know, pretended, that even this forbearance is a sort of 
forgiveness, and that all the world sharing in it, are in some sort 
forgi¥en. So Mr. Baxter says. If this learned person or any 
other has a mind to extend the notion of pardon so far as to include 
even reprieves under that name, we cannot hinder : but it is cer- 
tain, that no abatement of the punishment, far less the dissolution 
of the obligation, which is that ordinarily meant by pardon, do ne- 
cessarily follow upon, or is included in a delay of punishment. 
The slowness in execution, which may proceed upon many 
grounds, hid in the depth of divine wisdom from us, may be more 
than compensated by its severity when it comes. Leaden feet, as 
some have used the expression, may be compensated by iron 
hands. And when men have seriously weighed outward good 
things, which are thrown in greatest plenty in the lap of the most 
wicked, and are full of vanity and commonly ensnare, they can 
see but very little of any mercy designed them thereby. And if 
any inference toward a placability is deducible, which I profess I 
cannot see, I am sure that it is far above the reach of not a few, if 
not most of mankind, to make the deduction and trace the argu- 
ment. And so it can be of no use to them. 2. All those things 
are consistent with a sentence standing unrepealed and never to 
be repealed, if either scripture, v*hich tells us that God exercises 
much long suffering, and gives plenty of good things to the ves- 
sels of wrath ; or reason, which assures us that persons continuing 
obstinate to the last in sin, cannot evite judgment, may be be- 
lieved. 3. As there is nothing in the nature of the things that can 
ascertain us of God's placability, much less is there any in the 
condition of the person, to whom this dispensation is exercised. 
Were these bestowed on the most virtuous, or were there an in- 
crease of them, as persons proceeded in virtue, and came nearer 
and nearer to repentance ; or were there on the other hand a con- 
tinued evidence of wrath and implacability towards obstinate sin- 
ners, this then would seem to say somewhat. But all things are 
quite contrary, the worst have the most of them, ai^d the best have 
commonly least of them. What will the sinner say, that God is 
inviting me by this goodness to virtue ? No, if I should turn vir- 
tuous I might rather expect to be worse dealt with. That is a 
Iwbtiess way for any thing I can ^ee in it. Does not the scrip- 



152 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



tiire and experience tell us, that thus things go, and that such use 
sinners have made of this dispensation ? And so dark is it, that 
even they who had God's mind in the word to unriddle the mys- 
tery, have been shaken at it so far, that they have been upon the 
bj'ink of apostacy, while they saw the way of sinners prosper, and 
that they who hate God were exalted. How then can unenlighten- 
ed reason draw mch inferences as" these learned men pretend ? 
Although I have a great veneration for these learned men ; yet if 
it would not appear presumptuous in one so far below in all re- 
spects, to censure his superiors, I would take the liberty to say, 
that in this matter they are guilty of a double mistake : First, In 
that ihey measure men's abilities by a wrong standard. What 
such men as they may trace by reason, many men are uader not 
only a moral, but even a natural incapacity to discover. It is cer- 
tain, besides that vast difference which is in the capacities of men, 
from different education and circumstances, whence it is morally 
impossible for one who wants that education, and other occasions 
and advantages which another has, to go that same length and 
trace those discoveries, which the other who had education and oc- 
casion may do : there is likewise vast difference even in the natur- 
al abilities of men (whether that arises from their bodies or souls I 
dispute not now, nor is it to the purpose ; for if from either it is 
still natural) so that one has not a natural capacity to trace the 
truths that others may, who have better natural abilities : and so 
it is naturally impossible for the former to make the discoveries 
w hich the other may. And I fear not to add, that if any such in- 
ferences maybe drawn from these premises, as those learned per- 
sons pretend, yet many are under a natural impossibility ; and the 
most under insuperable moral incapacity of tracing those disco- 
veries. And if it be allowed that any man, without his own fdult, 
is urider an incapacity of making such deductions, about the pla- 
cability of God, from these dispensations of providence, which I 
think cannot modestly be denied, the whole plea about placabili- 
ty will prove not only unserviceable to the Deists, but, if I mistake 
it not, unmeet to maintain that station for which it is designed, in 
the hypothesis of the learned asserters of this opinion. Another 
mistake I think those persons guilty of, is, that men whose minds 
are not enlightened by revelation, may possibly trace those disco- 
veries, which they who are 2:ulded by it may read in the book of 
nature. 4. I add, if these things whereon they insist, as disco- 
veries of this placability in God, serve to raise any suspicions of 
that sort in the minds of men, and this is the most that can be 
reasonably pretended, for demonstration they do not amount unto, 
they are quite sunk by the contrary evidences of God's severity ; 
which must have so much of force, in as much as they most com- 
monly befall the most virtuous, which heightens the suspicion. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 153 



And besides, as we heard Amyrald observe, the minds of sinners, 
who are convinced in any measure of sin, who are yet the oniy 
persons that will think themselves concerned in this matter, are 
much more inclined, to entertain suspicions than good thoughts of 
him, whom they have offended, and who, as their consciences as- 
sure them, hates their offences. 5. That which puis the cope- 
stone upon our misery, and concludes us under darkness, is that 
nature's light has no help to guide us over the difficulties laid in 
our way, from any known instances of any persons led to repent- 
ance by these means, or pardoned on their repentance. So that 
upon the whole, I cannot see sufficient evidence of this placabili- 
ty in the light of nature. 

12. If it is alledged here, that if God had no design of mercy 
in sparing the world, it is perfectly unintelligible why he did it. 
In answer to this, it is to be observed, that we did not say 
that God had no design of mercy in sparing the world, but that 
this his forbearance of the world is not a sufficient proof and evi- 
dence of this design ; and that nature's light can give no satisfy- 
ing account of the reason of this dispensation of God. So dark 
was this to such as had no other light but that of reason, that the 
most part laid aside thoughts of it as a thing above their reach ; 
and the more thoughtful knew not what judgment to make, but 
were confounded and perplexed in their thoughts. They under- 
stood not what account was to be made of God's producing so 
many successive generatiojis of men, and tossing them betwixt 
love and hatred, hope and fear, by such a strange mixture cf good 
and evil — effects of his bounty and evidences of his anger. Yea 
so far were they confounded, that some of them came the length 
to set God aside from the government of the world. No less a 
person than Seneca introduces God, telling good men, " That he 
could not help their calamities." And Pliny accuses God, under 
the notion of nature, of no good design, " Naturam, quasi mag- 
" na Sr sceva mercede contra tarda sua miinera usum ; ita iit non 
" satis sit astimare, parens melior homini, an tristior noverca 
fnerit ;" id est, Nature has so cruelly counterbalanced its largest 
" gifts with horrible evils, that it is hard to say, whether it is not 
" a sad or cruel step-mother rather than a kind parent to man.'* 
So that in fact, men were thus spared and left in this dark condi- 
tion, as to the reasons of God's dispensations, is evident from ex- 
perience. The reasons of this conduct are to be sought in the 
depth of the wisdom and sovereign justice of God. Christiana 
who are sound in the faith, will own, that all who belonged to tlie 
election of grace could not have come into being, if the v/orld had 
not been thus spared. They will own that the world could not 
have been preserved in any order, without these effects both of 
bounty and severity, whereby some restraint was put on the lusts 

20 



154 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



of men, and some government kept up among them, and they 
were kept from rumiiiig to such a height in sin, as would have 
made it impossible for God, with any consistency to his justice, 
holiness or w isdom to have preserved the world, till his design in 
its preservation was reached. And it may be said further, for the 
satisfaction of Christians (for the deists have no concern in this ac- 
count, which is bottomed on the revelation they deny) that if 
God had seen meet to make all that belonged to Adam's covenant 
at once, they could not have refused to consent to the placing 
their happiness on that bottom whereon he placed it in the trans- 
action with Adam, and could not have condemned God for execu- 
ting the sentence upon all immediately upon the breach of it- 
And therefore 1 think they have no reason to quarrel at God*s keep- 
ing them out of hell for a while. Further, God in his wisdom, by 
leaving so many in this dark case for so many ages, has let them 
see the shortness of their wisdom to disentangle them from that 
miserj^, whereunto by sin they were involved. It was in the wis- 
dom of God, that the world by wisdom knew not God, Finally, 
this should make us welcome the gospel, which onl3f can dispel the 
darkness we are under, as to the whole state of matters betwixt 
God and us, and lead us to life and immortality, and mercy, par- 
doning mercy, which the dim light of nature could never discover 
to us. 

Now if we consider what has been above discoursed, it will be 
found that we have made considerable advances towards a decision 
of that which is in debate. 

^^^e have cleared what that repentence is, which with any 
sh^^v- of reason can be pretended available in the present case. 

Wo have evinced that the placability of God, of which some 
talk, were it discoverable by nature's light, is not sufficient to bring 
men to this repentance. 

Further, we have made it appear, that the evidences of this 
placability brought from nature's light are not conclusive. 

But were all this given up, which we see no cause to do, the 
principal point is still behind, viz. " Whether nature's light can 
" ascertain us that all penitent sinners shall be pardoned upon 
" their repentance." This the deists maintain, and we deny. 
Their assertion, " that the light of nature assures us that penitent 
" sinners upon their repentance shall assuredly be forgiven," is 
that which we shall next take under consideration, and demon- 
strate to be groundles, false and absurd, by the ensuing arguments. 

1 . I reason against it from the nature of pardon. Forgiveness 
or pardon is a free act of God's will. It is a freeing of the sin- 
ner from the obligation he lies under to punishment, by virtue of 
the penal sanction of that righteous and just law which he has 
violated. All divine laws are unquestionably equal;, just and 



PRINCIPLES OF ititl MODERN DE18TS. Ibo 

righteous, and their penal sanctions are so too. Certainly there- 
fore God may justly inflict the punishment contained in the sanc- 
tion of the law upon the transgressors ; and consequently, we 
may without fear infer, that to relieve him from that penalty is a 
most free act, to which God was not necessarily obliged. And in- 
deed, though all this had not been said, the thing is in itself clear ; 
for we can frame no other notion of forgiveness than this, " That 
it IS a voluntary and free act of grace, which remits the punish- 
ment, and looses the sinner from that punishment he justly de- 
served, and which the lawgiver might justly have inflicted on 
him." Now this being clear, we infer, that such acts cannot be 
known otherwise than, either by revelation, that is God*s declar- 
ing himself expressly to this purpose, or by the deed itself, some 
positive act of forgiveness, which is the effect of such a purpose. 
The deists disown and deny any revelation. And for any effect 
declarative of such a purpose, we shall challenge the world to pro- 
duce it. There never was, nor is any one person, of whom we 
can certainly affirm, upon the information of nature's light, that 
God has forgiven him, either upon repentance or without. And 
if there were such persons, it would not bear the weight of a 
general conclusion, that because God has done it to them, there- 
fore he will do it to all, in ail other instances. 

2. I reason against this supposed constitution from the extent 
of it, that God will pardon all penitent sinners. If this is not said, 
he pardons none upon their penitence : for if any penitent sinner 
can be supposed to remain unpardoned, why may not all ? Besides, 
if a penitent sinner is punished, then it must be upon somewhat 
else than penitence, that he who is pardoned obtains remission. 
For if mere penitence had been sufficient, a penitent could not 
have suffered. Now if all penitent sinners are forgiven, and na- 
ture's light assures them that they shall be forgiven, then the ex- 
tent of this constitution is very large. For, 1 . It makes void the 
penal sanction of the law as to all sins, however atrocious they 
are, if the sinner is only a penitent. 2. It extends to all ages, 
places, and generations of men, that ever have been, or shall be in 
the world. 3. It reaches to all sorts of persons, even those who 
are in a capacity to introduce the greatest disorders in the go- 
vernment of the world, as well as in the meanest offenders. Weil 
then, the deists must maintain that it is thus enacted, and this 
act or constitution is in all this extent publicly declared by the 
light of nature, so that all may know it. 4. It reaches to all sins, 
past, present, and to come ; they shall all be forgiven, if the 
sinner does only repent. Now against such an extensive consti- 
tution, we offer the following considerations : 

(1.) All wise governors, who have any regard to the honor of 
their laws, authority, and government?, use to be very sparing in 



156 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



indemnifying trans^ession. And no wonder they should ; for 
wise and just rulers are cot wont to enact penalties, but in pro- 
portion to offences. And therefore a passing easily from them tends 
to make transgression cheap, and to weaken the constitution, and 
so dissolve the government. Now God is no less tender of the 
honour of those laws, which enact nothing but what is the tran- 
script of his own righteous nature, and the opposite whereof he 
has the deepest abhorrency of, as contrary to the same. And 
can we then reasonably suppose him to be so lavish of forgiveness 
as to establish it in so strange an extent ? I believe it will be hard 
for any thinking man to judge so. 

(2.) In all well ordered governments pardon is a particular act 
of grace, restricted to some time, place and person ; yea and 
crimes to : and therefore is never extended so universally as here 
it is, and if it is to the purpose, must be asserted. So that the 
common reason of mankind declares against such a constitution ; 
for what is or may be pretended of impenitent sinners being ex- 
cluded, is in very deed, no restriction of the law indemnifying 
transgressors of whatever sort, that are but willing to be indemni- 
fied. For impenitent sinners are they only who have no will to 
be pardoned, or who will not accept of favor. Now to indemnify 
all that are willing to be pardoned is very odd constitution. And 
before I ascribe this to the wisdom of the great Ruler of the world, 
I must see better reasons than I am ever likely to see in this case. 

(3.) No wise government ever enacted pardon of such an uni- 
versal extent, v/ithout further gecurity for the honor of the go- 
vernment, into a perpetual and standing law. Pardon and acts of 
grace are a part of the sovereignty of the governor : and however 
he may make them very extensive sometimes ; yet he alwoys re- 
serves it so in his own power, that it shall afterwards be voiuiitary 
and free to him to forgive or not as he shall see cause. 

(4.) Such a constitution is especially irreconciieable with wii:;- 
dom and equity, if it is extended to transgressions not yet coui- 
mitted ; for in that case it looks like an invitation to sin. 

(5.) And this binds more strongly, if the persons are strongly 
inclined to sin. 

(6.) More e>^peclally such a constitution is never to be reconciled 
with wisdom, if it is universally made known and published with- 
out any provision made for the securing of the honor of the law, 
agair:st any abuse of such grace. Now I desire to know if na- 
ture's light discovers such an act and declaration of grace. Where 
h there any care taken, or any provisos inserted in the declara- 
tion that c^n eT iderxe the regard wh^ch God has for his laws, and 
fieciire against the abuse of such kindness ? Indeed the scripture 
discovery of Diercy to penitent sinners, on account of Christ's 
satlsLctior, fjl'y removes all Ihoae dimculties Vvhich otherwise , 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 157 



so far as I can see, are never to be removed : And therefore I 
can never see how such a declaration could be made without the 
concomitant discovery of a satisfaction to justice, and reparation 
of the honor of the law-giver and law, and security against abuse 
of grace. Remarkable to this purpose are the words of the learn- 
ed and judicious Dr. How : " That prince would certainly never 
" be so much magnified for his clemency and mercy, as he would 
" be despised by all the world, for most remarkable defects of 
" gover iment, that should not only pardon whosoever of his sub- 
" jects had offended him, upon their being sorry for it ; but go 
" about to provide, that a law should obtain in his dominions, thro' 
" all after time, that whosoever should offend against the govern- 
" ment, with whatsoever insolency, malignity and frequency, if 
" they repented they should never be punished, but be taken 
" forthwith into highest favor. Admit that it had been congruous 
" to the wisdom and righteousness of God, as well as his goodness, 
" to have pardoned a particular sinner, upon repentance, without 
" satisfaction ; yet nothing could have been more apparently un- 
" becoming him, than to settle an universal law for all future time, 
" to that purpose, that let as many as would, in any age to the 
" world's end, nffront him never so highly, invade his rij!:hts, tram- 
" pie on his authority, and tear the constitution of his govern- 
" ment, they should, upon their repentance, be forgiven, and not 
" only not be punished, but be most highly advanced, and dignifi- 
" ed." Thus far he. In the subsequent paragraph he learnedly 
and judiciously shews the difference hi the gospel proposal of mer- 
cy to offenders, from this supposed case of forgiveness without 
satisfaction. 

3. I i.'iquire, whether is it possible that there may be any crime 
so atrocious, that it may be possible for God, in a congruity with 
his perfection, to punish, notwithstanding of the intervention of 
repentance ? If there may be any such, then certainly it is not 
merely on account of repentance that sin is pardoned : and so a 
penitent cannot always be sure of forgiveness. Further, consi- 
dering how grievous and sinful every transgression of God's law is, 
how can I be sure what sins are pardonable upon repentance and 
what not f If it is not possible for God to punish any penitent, then 
1. I would inquire what so great matter is there in repentance, 
that can bind God up from vindicating his honor against affronts 
already offered ? 2. To what purpose was the penal sanction since, 
in the case it was designed ? For when the law is transgressed, it 
may not possibly take place but the execution is inconsistent with 
the nature of God. 3. How will this impossibility ever be proven ? 
Repentance hath nothing in it so great to infar it : for in repent- 
ance no more can be ailed ged but a return to duty antecedent!}' 
due. And as to thh, we are unprofitable servantt". And Chribt 



158 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



has told us what reason tells us also, that we deserve no thanks for 
it. And as for the other part, sorrow for by-gones, it is the ne- 
cessarj result of that regard to the Deity, and knowledge of our 
own sin, that is likewise our own duty. Now what is there, in all 
this, that should be supposed to be of so great worth, that it must 
inevitably stop the course of justice ? 

But here it may be objected, not only by Deists, but some, who 
are very far from favoring them, " That God cannot cast away 
" from his love and felicity any soul, which truly loveth him, 

above all, and which so repenteth of his sin, as to return to 
" God in holiness in heart and iife.""^ 

I answer, I . The supposition that a sinner convinced of sin can 
repent without some security given as to pardon, can love God 
above all, and so repent, as to turn to holiness in heart and life, ap- 
pears to me impossible. Much less is it possible that an uncon- 
vinced sinner can repent. The reason is plain, a clear conviction 
of sin inevitably lays us under the deepest fear of God, and dread 
of punishment from him, which not only casts out that love, but 
draws on hatred, or at least, strong aversion ; as we heard the 
learned Amyrald well observe in the words before quoted. Now 
it is certain, that suppose one impossibility, twenty will follow. — 

2, If the thing is not impossible, which I think it i?, yet certainly 
it is a case that never happened, and is never likely to happen. — 

3. Supposing it possible, it is a very bold assertion, that no crime, 
how atrocious soever, would justify the inflicting of the penalty 
contained in the righteous sanction of the law. 4. Much less 
then is it hard to suppose that it would justify God's denying any 
reward to the sinner, that he has so sinned. And if it is granted 
that penitence does not necessarily restore to a prospect of reward, 
all religion and encouragement to it is lost. I cannot forbear quot- 
ing again the accurate and judicious Dr. How's words, who after 
he has shown that our offences against God incomparably transcend 
the measure of any offence that can be done by one creature against 
another, presently subjoins, " Yea, and as it can never be 
" thought congruous, that such an offence against a human govern- 
" or, should be pardoned, without the intervening repentance of 
" the delinquent ; so we may easily apprehend also the case to be 
" such, as that it cannot be fit, it should be pardoned on that 
*• alone, v/ithout other recompence :"f whereof if any should 
doubt, I would demand, is it, in any case, fit, that a penitent de- 
linquent against human laws and government should be punished, 
or a proportionable recompence be exacted for his offence not- 
withstanding ? Surely it will be acknowledged ordinarily fit ; and 

* Baxters Reasons of Christ. Reli.e^. Pai't 1. pa^e 184, 188. 
t Living Temple, Part 2. page 240. * 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 159 



who would take upon him to be the censor of the common justice 
of the world in all such cases ! Or to condemn the proceedings of 
all times and nations, wheresoever a penitent offender hath been 
made to suffer the legal punishment of his offence, notwithstand- 
ing his repentance ? How strange a maxim of government would 
that be, that it is never fit that an offender, of whatsoever kind, 
should be punished, if he repent himself of his offence ! And sure- 
ly, if ever, in any case, somewhat else than repentance be fitly 
insisted on as a recompence, for the violation of the sacred rights 
of government, it may well be supposed much more so in the case 
of man*s common delinquency and revolt from God. 

4. I reason against this position, from the consideration of the 
imperfection of this repentance, which, as it takes place amongst 
sinful men, is guilty of a double imperfection. Our sorrow and 
our return are imperfect, in respect of degrees. Our relation to 
God and his to us requires the highest, the most perfect love and 
the most cordial obedience. No less will answer our obligations. 
And our sorrow, if it is required, must be supposed likewise to be 
such as results necessarily from such a love. Now what can be 
more evident than this, that none of the children of men love God 
as they ought, and with that intention and vehemency, which an- 
swers their original obligation ? And consequently their sorrow 
and obedience can never come up to it : for they being the result 
of this love, can never go beyond the principle, which influences 
them. Again, our return is liable to another imperfection, even 
a frequent interruption. The case is not thus, that we only once, 
through infirmity, make an escape ; but even after our supposed 
return, it must be allowed that there will be after-deviations. And 
hence it becomes a question, how can we expect acceptance in 
our returns ? How can our repentance, v/hich answers not the de- 
mands of the law, and our ties to duty be accepted for itself ? 
And if so, much more may it be a question, how can it be allowed 
sufficient to atone for other transgressions, yea, how can it be suf- 
ficient to atone for transgressions, which it takes no notice of? For 
there are such sins as by the light of nature we are never likely 
to reach the conviction of ; and therefore it is impossible we 
should sorrow for them, or repent of them ? However men may 
please themselves with a fancy of the sufficiency of their repent- 
ance ; yet a sinner, that understands his own case, will never be 
able to satisfy his own conscience in this matter. 

I know it is pleaded, " That we have a harder province to admin- 
" ister than even the angels themselves ; they not having so gross 
" a body as we have, nor exposed to so much evil as we are. But 

God knoweth our frame, and uDon that account is not ex- 
" treme to mark what is done amiss. A creature, as a creature, is 
^' finite and fallible : and yet we are not the most perfect of God's 



160 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



" creation. Now, for fallible to fail, is no more than for frail to be 
" broken ; and mortal to die. Where there is finite and limited 
" perfection there is not only a possibility, but a contingency to 
" fail, to err, to be mistaken, not to know and to be deceived. 
" And where the agent is such, there is place for repentance. — 
" Repentance is that which makes a finite being failing, capable of 
" compassion. If repentance did not take effect, it would be too 
" hazardous for a creature to come into being. If upon a lapse, 
" an error, or mistake, we should be undone to eternity, without 
" all hope of recovery ; who would willingly enter upon this state 
Thus speaks Dr. Whichcote. 

To this plausible discourse we answer. Either this reasoning pro- 
ceeds upon the state of things, according to the covenant of grace, 
and respects them who have laid hold on it, or it does not. If 
it docs proceed on this footing, we say it helps not the Deists : 
but if, as it seems, it be extended further, then I shall make the 
following remarks on it. 1. Although we have here many things 
prettily said, yet I cannot but deeply dislike the discourse, because 
it aims at the extenuation of sin, and pleads its excuse from our 
frailty. Now, besides that this bears hard upon the author of our 
constitution, as if he had made it unequal to the laws he imposed 
on it, it is a foolish argument, because the case may be as much 
exaggerated on the other hand by the representing the greatness 
of the law-giver, the equality of the laws, and the ability of man, 
at least in his first make to obey. And the one will not signify 
more to give us hope of forgiveness on our repentance, than the 
other wUl to make us despair of it. 2. It seems to reflect on God's 
different conduct with the angels that sinned, who had no place al- 
lowed them for repentance : for their frame was finite, and so, frail 
and failable. The little difference from the grossness of our bodies, 
if man is not supposed corrupt, and his body inclined to evil, makes 
no difierence that can satisfy ; for still we were under no necessity 
of sinning from our constitution, if it is not supposed to be corrupt. 
But to pretend that man was made corrupt, carries our frailty too 
far, to make it God's deed. We cannot plead in excuse, any defects 
in our constitution, that God put not there. 3. It condemns ail 
human laws that spares not penitent transgressors. If it be said, 
that they are under a necessity to do it ; I answer, whence does 
this necessity arise ? Is the honor of the divine law less dear to 
him, and of less consideration than the honor and rights of human 
constitutions and governments ? But further, I desire to know, will 
necessity justify the punishment of the penitent ? If not, then here 
it doth not j ustify : if it doth, who will assure me that there is not 



* Dr. Whichcote's select Sermons, Part 2. Sermon 2nd, on Acts xiii. 38. 
pag-e 322. 323. 



PKINCIPLFuSj OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 161 



1^3 great a necessity for this course in divine as hunian govern- 
ments ; at least in some instances ? And if in any instance the 
punishment of a penitent may take place, who will condescend to tell 
where it may, and where not ? How likewise can it be said that 
penitence secures pardon ? Further, 4. I say directly to the argu- 
ment, if divine laws are as much adjusted to man's pow^er, as the 
c6nstitutions and laws of human governments are, (and that they 
behoved to be so, with respect to his power in his first constitution 
has been made appear) then it is no more hazardous to come into 
being, than to enter into human society, where frail man may, for a 
word or a deed, forfeit his own life to justice and all the advan- 
tages of it, and beggar his posterity, and that without any prospect 
of relief by his repentance. If it be said, that the punishments 
are greater in this case ; I grant it : so are the laws too, and con- 
sequently the transgressions ; and so likewise are the advantages 
of obedience ; and without an injurious reflection on God, it can- 
not be denied that the laws are, as well at least, attempered to 
man's abilities wherewith he was created and subjected to them. 
5. I do not see how it can be injustice to inflict a just punishment 
upon transgressors, and such of necessity, that is, which is includ- 
ed in the sanction of the divine laws. Nor does repentance make 
that execution unjust ; which, without it, is allowed not only just, 
but indispensably necessary. This I might largely shew, but 
others have done it before."^ 

5. The falsehood of this proposition miy be farther evidenced 
from the nature of the justice of God, that seems necessarily to 
require that sin be punished. For clearing this, I shall make the 
ensuing observations : in doing which we shall aim at such a gra- 
dual progression as may set the matter in the best light. 

(1.) Justice strictly taken, is " that virtue of the rational na- 
ture, whose business it is to preserve, maintain^ and be a guardian 
of the rights of rational beings." It is commonly defined^ a " con- 
stant and abiding or fixed Aviil of giving to every one what is their 
right or due." Whence it has been debated, whether in man 
there is any such thing as self-justice ; because, according to this 
account of justice, it seems to be restricted to the rights of others. 
And this restriction has countenance given to it from that common 
maxim, that volenti nonfit injuriaf-f which is founded in this, that 
a man is supposed capable of parting, wiihout wrong, with his own 
lights, and consequently is not capable of injustice towards him- 
self. It is true, man has no rights, which he may not deprive 
himself of by his own corisent. Yet since man has such rights, 
though they are but derived ones, as also his being is, as he cannot 

* See Specimen Refutationis erellii, pa^e 100, 101, S; sequ. 
t No injury is dons to one who is wililuji-," 



162 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

deprive himself of without fault, I see not but even such a thing 
as self-justice may take place among men : but whatever the case ^ 
be as to men, there is certainly in God to be allowed such a thing 
as self-justice. For clearing of which I observe, 

(2.) That God, being the fountain of all rights, has certainiyi 
rights, which he can by no means deprive himself of. He has 
right of dominion over the creature, and to the creature's subje< 
tion, that he cannot part with. As long as there is a rational crea- 
ture it is, by its being, inevitably subject to its Creator, and h 
cannot part with that right he has to govern it. " With the su- 
*' preme Proprietor, there cannot but be unalienable rights, ins. 
" parably and everlastingly inherent in him : for it cannot be, buT 
" that he, who is the fountain of all rights must have them pr 
" marily and originally in himself ; and can no more so quit the 
" as to make the creature absolute and independent, than he ca" 
" make the creature God."* Hence inevitably there must " 
allowed self-justice, which is nothing else, save that fixed deteri 
nation of the divine will, not to part with what is his own unalie 
able right, and consequently to maintain it. 

(3.) This justice, in order to maintain God's right of govemmen 
obliges him to enact penal laws as the measure of the creature' 
subjection and obedience. A subject cannot be without laws. 
And where the creature is capable of transgressing, laws cann 
be such without penalties. Without these, they were rathe 
counsels or advices, than laws ; and the person to whom they are 
given is left at will to be subject to them or noto And if God should 
thus leave the creature without a pel^ty, then upon transgression, 
the transgressor has slipt entirely out under the dominion of God; 
for he is not actively, in that instance, subject to God. And nei- 
ther is he passively subject, if there is no penalty. So that by 
this means God has forfeited or lost his right, which is impossible- 
There is no other imaginable tie of subjection, but either the pre- 
cept or the penal sanction of the law, whereby rational creatures, 
as to their moral dependence can be bound. Now if God part 
v/ith the one, by remitting the penalty, or enacting laws without it, 
and man cast off the other by disobedience, the creature is, at 
least thus far, Independent. Which, how absurd it is, it is easy to 
see, Wherefore,^ in case the creature is made, we cannot but 
suppose a law must be made to it. And if the creature is capable 
of violating that law, there must, for preserving that right, which 
God has to the creature's subjection, be a penalty annexed to that 
law. Whence it seems evident, " that God did owe it to himself 
" primarily, as the absolute Sovereign and Lord of all, not to suf- 



* Living Temple, Part 2. page 270. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 163 



fer indignities to be offered him, without animadverting upon 
them, and therefore to determine he would do so."* 
(4.) The creature being made, justice requires that it should be 
under such a law as is enacted with a penalty, and such a law be- 
ing now enacted, there seems to arise a double necessity for the 
execution of the law, in case of transgression. The one arising 
from the reason of the law, the other from the law itself: Since 
upon the grounds already laid down, the law was necessary ; the 
same grounds enforce the execution of the law : for when the case 
falls out, for which the law was provided, it is not merely the law 
or constitution itself, but the execution of it that secures the end. 
When the creature disobeys, he has in so far renounced an actual 
dependence on, and subjection to the law-giver and law : and 
therefore it seems of necessity that either as to these actions he 
is not subject, or he must be subject to the penalty. Again, as 
the reason of the law enforces the execution, so does the law it- 
self. For the law being once made, justice requires that its honor 
be secured either by obedience, or by the subjection of the trans- 
gressor to the punishment. 

(5.) To proceed yet further, if the law is not executed, the 
design, even the principal design of punishment in this case, is 
not reached. It is not the only or main design of punishment or 
penal sanctions to reclaim the offender, or benefit by-standers, or 
secure the community. It is true, the penal sanction, or law 
enacting the penalty, is of use to deter from transgressing, and so 
is of use to the community, and all under the government ; but 
the execution, if the sanction is punishment after this life, is of no 
advantage to the offender, nor is it instructive to by-standers, or 
the rest of the community, who do not see it : wherefore these are 
not the principal ends of punishment. Though it is to be observ- 
ed, that any public intimation that the penalty shall not be inflict- 
ed, could not but be of the worst consequence to the community, 
as rendering it vain as to all that use, which it has of deterring 
persons who are under the law from sin. Yet I say, these are not 
the principal ends of punishment ; but the satisfaction of the law- 
giver. For the case is not here, as it is in human governments, 
where the governors and government are both constituted for the 
good of the governed, which therefore must be the chief aim of all 
laws : but on the contrary, the governed are made, and the laws 
made, and penalties enacted for the Governor, who made all things 
for himself. And consequently, the principal design of punish- 
ment is the securing and vindicating his honor in the government. 
Nor is this any such thing as answers to private revenge amongst 
men. " But that wherewith we must suppose the blessed God to be 

* Living Temple, page 271. 



164 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



« pleased in the matter of punishing, is the congrulty of the thing 
" itself, that the sacred rights of his government over the world 
" be vindicated, and that it be understood how ill his nature can 
" comport with any thing that is impure, and what is in itself so 
highly incongruous, cannot but be the matter of his detestation. 
*f He takes eternal pleasure in the reasonableness and fitness of his 
own determinations and actions ; and rejoices in the works of 
his own hands, as agreeing with the apt, eternal schemes and 
models, which he hath conceived in his own most wise and all- 
comprehending mind : so that though he desireth not the death 
of sinners^ and hath no delight in the sufferings of his afflicted 
*« creatures, which his immense goodness rather inclines him to 
behold with compassion ; yet the true ends of punishment are 
so much a greater good, than their ease and exemption from the 
*' sufferings they had deserved, that they must rather be chosen, 
" and cannot be eligible for any other reason, but for that which also 
" they are to be delighted in, i. e, a real goodness, and conducible- 
" ness to a valuable end inherent in them." 

(6.) As justice in a strict sense, of which hitherto we have spo- 
ken, as it denotes that rectitude of the divine nature, which is con- 
versant about, and conservative of the divine rights, pleads for penal 
laws and punishment; so likewise justice in a large sense, as it 
comprehends all his moral perfections, holiness, wisdom, faithful- 
ness, &c. and answers to that which is amongst men called univer- 
sal justice, pleads for the same : for so taken, it comprehends his 
holiness and perfect detestation of all impurity ; in respect v/here- 
of he cannot but be perpetually inclined to animadvert with seve- 
rity upon sin ; both because of its irreconcileable contrariety to 
his holy nature, and the insolent affront, which it therefore direct- 
ly offers him; and because of the implicit and most injurious mis- 
representation cf him which it contains in it, as if he were either 
kindly or more indifferently affected towards it : upon which ac- 
counts, we may well suppose him to esteem it necessary for him, 
both to constitute a rule for punishing it, and to punish it accord- 
ingly ; that he may both truly act liis own nature, and truly repre- 
sent it. Again, it includes, thus taken, his governing wisdom, 
which requires indispensibly that he do every thing in his govern- 
ment so as he may appear like himself, and answerably to his own 
greatness ; so as to secure a deep regard for his government, and 
all the parts of the constitution. In respect whereof, it might be 
shown, that the punishment of sin, or the execution of the penal 
laws solemnly enacted is necessary. Wisdom takes care that one 
attribute do not quite obscure another, and will not allow that he 
gratify mercy to the detriment of justice. Again, it includes his 
faithfulness and sincerity, v/hich seem pledged in enacting the pe- 
Wdltj for its execution. Jlow h it consistent with them to eiiaiit 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 165 



such severe penalties, if he may remit them without any repara- 
ion made for the wrong done ? Any one that would see more to 
this purpose, besides others who have discoursed of Vindictive 
Justice, may peruse the learned Dr. How's Living Temple, Part 
2. Chap. 6 and 7, who has learnedly discoursed and improven this 
subject : to whom we own ourselves indebted for much light in 
this matter. 

Thus it seems evident, that whether we take the divine justice 
in this last and largest notion, as it is comprehensive of all the per- 
fections of the Deity, or in the former and strict notion as it im- 
ports a virtue, whose province it is to take care of the preserva- 
tion of the incommunicable rights of the Deity, and vindicate their 
honor ; it seems necessarily to forbid the remission of sin without 
the punishment of the transgressor, or a reparation of the injured 
honor of the Deity. 

If it be alleged, that by repentance the sinner returns to his sub- 
jection, and so the honor of God's government is repaired. I an- 
swer, that upon supposition of the sinner's return being a suffi- 
cient reparation of the honour of the Deity, there would indeed 
be no necessity of punishment : but this is the question, and the 
ojjjection begs what is in question. The principles now laid 
down, shew that justice, however taken, must take care to pre- 
serve and vindicate God's honor in case of transgression. The 
penal sanction of the law tells us, that the punishment of the trans- 
gressor is that which wisdom and justice have fixed on, as proper 
for this end. There is no alternative, punishment or repentance. 
The Jaw makes only mention of punishment. When therefore 
the objectors say that repentance is sufficient, we deny it. — 
They do not prove it, nor can they. God, to whom alone 
it belongs to determine what is necessary for the vindication of 
his own honour, must determine the reparation ; wc cannot. Yea, 
it were presumption in angels to do it. God has fixed upon pun- 
ishment : if he allow of any thing else, the light of nature does 
not tell it. Nor is there any thing in the nature of repentance, as 
h^s been above cleared, that can induce us to think it is sufficient 
to this purpose. The most virtuous, who must be supposed the 
penitents, if there are any such, meet with as heavy punishments 
in this life as any, which shews, at least, that God looks not upon 
their penitence as satisfaction. 

6. Against this proposition we reason thus : Every man is en- 
dued with a power to repent when he pleases, or he is not. To 
assert the latter, were to yield the cause ; for it matters not to 
the sinner, whether repentance be a sufficient atonement or not, if 
it be not in his power to repent. Besides, it is a question in this 
case of considerable difficulty, whether it is consistent with the 
perfections of God to give this power, till once his honor is scr 



166 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



cured by a suitable reparation for the injury done it by sin. If it 
is in the sinner^s power to repent when he pleases, then again I 
insist, 

Either God without impeachment of his justice may inflict the 
punishment contained in the sanction of the law on the sinner, 
notwithstanding of his repentance, or he may not. If he may, 
then the Deists can never without revelation be sure that he will 
not inflict the punishment, which is what we say : nor will it mend 
the matter, to say that though God, without the impeachment of his 
justice, may punish the repenting sinner, yet he cannot do it with- 
out injuring his mercy : for what is contrary to one of God's attri- 
butes, is so to all. And moreover, the justice of God in any par- 
ticular requires that each of the divine attributes have their due. 

But if it be said, that God cannot in justice punish the repent- 
ing sinner ; then I desire to be satisfied, if this does not evacuate 
and make void the penal sanction of the law ? For if every man 
hath a power to repent when he pleases, and this repentance stops 
the execution of the sentence, I do not see but any may offend 
without hazard. 

All that can be said is, that God may surprize man in the very 
act of sinning, or so soon after it, that he shall not have time to 
repent, and so man's hazard is suflicient to deter him from sin. 

But to this I answer, that the consideration of this hazard can 
never have much influence on man, to make him refuse the grati- 
fying of his senses, in which he finds so much pleasure, so long as 
in the ordinary conduct of providence he sees that God very 
rarely takes that course of snatching away sinners in the very act 
of sin, or so soon after as to preclude repentance. It is not so 
much what God may do, as what he ordinarily does, that is of 
weight to determine men, especially when they have so strong mo- 
tives to persuade them to the contrary, as the impetuous cravings 
of unruly lusts are known to be. 

This argurisent gives us a clear view how much the Deist's no- 
tion of pardon upon mere repentance favours sin ; and how un- 
reasonable the outcries of Herbert and Blount, repeated ad nause- 
am, against the maintainers of satisfaction really are. They say, 
the doctrine of satisfaction makes sin cheap. But whether do 
they who say that sin cannot be pardoned without the sinner's re- 
pentance and satisfaction, or they who assert repentance alone is 
sufficient, make sin cheapest ? 

7. I further argue against this doctrine, that this constitution, 
^nt or allowance of repentance, in case of transgression, is either 
co-seval with the law, and has its rise as the law hath, in the relation 
hetwixt God and man and tiieir natures, as being a necessary re- 
sult of them ; or it is a posterior establishment, and an act of free 
and gracious condescension in God, to which he was not neces» 



PRINCIPLSB OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 167 



sarily obliged. If this last is said, then I say, this could not be 
known, but by a revelation op-^ome deed of God, expressive of his 
mind in this matter. The first is Denied by the deists ; and we 
desire them to produce the ,Work of providence whereon it is le- 
gible, that God without any; jieparation to his justice for the in- 
jury done him by sin, will pardon the sinner upon his penitence 
and admit him to bliss. For though we should admit, that some 
works of providence singly taken, without observing others which 
may have a contrary aspect, have somewhat like an iirtimation of 
a placability, which we see but little reason to do ; yet we deny 
positively that there is any that specifies the terms, or particular- 
ly condescends on repentance, as that whereon he will- be pacified 
and reconciled to sinners. And if any will pretend to dra>v this 
from them, I wish they would essay it, and let us see of what 
form their procedure will be : perhaps they may prove, that it is 
not consistent with God's attributes to pardon an impenitent sin- 
ner : but if they think thence to infer, that therefore it is consist- 
ent to his attributes to pardon one merely upon his penitence, they 
may make good the consequence if they can ; they will find it 
harder than it appears. 

If the former is said, that this constitution is co-seval with the 
law, and is as much a necessary result of the nature of God and 
man, and their mutual relation, iis the law itself : besides what ha.«5 
been said to demonstrate the folly of it, let these three things be 
considered : 

(1.) The deists do, and are obliged to say, that man is' not now 
from his birth more corrupt than he was at first. 

(2.) Man at his original was, and consequently according^ to 
them, still is endued with power sufficient perfectly to know and 
obey the law he is subjected to. To say that he was subjected to 
a law, which he was not able to know or obey, is to accuse the 
Deity of folly and injustice ; as has been made appear. 

(3.) The law to which man is subjected, is exactly suited to 
God's great design, his own glory and man's happiness. 

These being granted, I conceive it evident, 1. That nothing 
can be said more injurious to the glorious perfections of God, 
than that any of them gives ground of hopes, far less assurance of 
impunity to man, if he break these laws, which are equally suited 
to promote God's glory and his own good, and which he wanted 
neither power to knoAv nor obey. 2. Such a grant would be of 
no less dangerous consequence to man, because it could be of no 
other use, than o attempt a violation of those laws, which it is so 
much his interest to obey. 

But some may say, it would be discouraging to man to think he 
were imdone, if he disobeyed in the least, I answer, this coulct 



168 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



be no reasonable discouragement if he was possessed of power 
perfectly to know and obey the law he was subjected to. 

Again, it may be said, that it was necessary there should be 
such an encourgement to man ; because, though he was entrust- 
ed with sufficient power to know and obey the law of God ; yet 
he was for trial exposed to a great many strong and forcible temp- 
tations to disobedience. 

For answer to this ; suppose two men equally able to know and 
obey the law ; the one knows he may obtain pardon on repentance, 
the other believes himself irrecoverably lost if he transgress ; I 
desire the objector, on supposition that both were attacked with a 
temptation equally strong, to answer me seriously, 1. Which of 
those two would in all probability soonest yield ; he that saw a 
probability of escape or he that saw none ? 2. Since the keep- 
ing of the law was highly advantageous to both, which of the two is 
in the best state ; he who has this strong motive to obedience, 
that he is ruined if he disobey, or he that hath this encouragement 
and enforcement of the temptation to disobedience, that he may 
disobey and escape ? Nor will they evade by saying, that this 
constitution was knowable before, but was not taken notice of till 
gin fell out : for if it might be known, all the inconveniences men - 
tioned will follow. Besides, if it was taken notice of after the first 
sin, it might be a temptation to all succeeding transgressions. 

In fine, if this allowance of repentance be said to have the same 
rise with the law, and be equally necessary from the nature of God 
and man and their mutual relation ; it is a plain dispensation with 
the law, and that equally made public, being notified in the same 
way as the law is ; which way it is consistent with the wisdom, 
holiness and justice of God, I know not. 

8. To add no more on this head, if this story about the suffi- 
ciency of repentance lies so open to the light of nature, whence 
was it that it was so little discerned ? The name of it, in the sense 
and to that use we now speak of, scarce occurs among the an- 
cients, if we may believe Herbert, who read them all with great 
diligence, and with a desi^ to find what was for his purpose. 
Speaking of their sins, he says : " Neque igitur mihi dubium est, 
" quin eoriim paniiuerit Gentiles, qu(B tot mala accerserunt, licet 
rarius qiiidem pmiitenticB verbwn inter auihores, eo, quo jam 
usurpatur sensUy reperiaturJ'^ Why does not he doubt of it ? 
The reason, he goes on, is, because they used sacrifices. But I 
suppose for this very reason some do doabt if they thought re- 
pentance sufficient : but of this more by and by. The philoso- 

* Herbert de Relig. Gentil. page 198.—" Nor is it therefore a doubt with 
" me, that the Gentiles repented of those crimes which brought so many 
" evils upon them, although the word repentance, in that sense which it is 
" now usedj seldom occurs iu their authors." 



P11INCIPLEI5 OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 16D 



phers neither taught nor practised it. It is true, Periandcr one 
of the wise men of Greece, had this for his saying : Afcuprav 
c 5T«ej3« A£t;«, " Repent of thy sins that is, possibly, leave tii^m 
off. For who can tell us whether lie had a rij^ht notion of repent- 
ance, or of what avail he thought it ! Seneca says, Quern panitct 
pecasse pene est innocens.'f This is spoken with his usual pride 
that made him think little of sin. But where is the person that 
taught repentance, or offered to evince it sufficient to atone the 
Deity ? Most of them contemptuously disregarded it. We find 
nothing like it in their best moralist's practice : hut on the con- 
trary, they were so puffed up with their virtues, that they made 
iio account of their sins. The priests taught not this doctrine, for 
ihey inculcated sacrifices as necessary to atoue the Deity. And 
if we may believe no incompetent judge, both priests and people 
were persuaded that repentance is not sufficient to atone the Dei- 
ty. It is Cfesar who tells us, that, " Pro vita hominis nisi vita 
hominis reddatnr non posse deoruni immortaliimi numen placa- 
ri arhitrantur GalliJ''''l To which we might add many more 
testimonies to the same purpose. Nor do we find any thing like 
this discovery among them ; which is very strange in a matter of 
importance, if it was so clearly revealed. That which is most 
like hat they would be at, is what \fe find in Ovid : 

Sa:pe levant pccnas, ereptaque lumina reddunt 
Quern bene peecati penltuisse vides. Et alibi, 

Quamvis est ig-itur meritis indebUa nostris. 
Magna tamen spes est in bonitate Dei'* 

But this Is nothing to the purpose : how many of the poets' no- 
tions, and particularly this one, were traditional ? How evidently 
were their notions of all things about the gods suited to their own 
fabulous stories of the clemency of the gods. And besides, we 
have no assurance that he understood what we do by repentance. 
Nor indeed could he. But more of this anon. 

Objections Considered, 

IT remains now that we take notice of some considerable ob- 
jections that are made against what hitherto has been discoursed 
by different persons, on different views and principles. 

f " He who repents of having* sinned is almost innocent." 
+ Caesar dc Belle Gal. Lib. 6. See Oatramus de Sacriiiciis, Lib. 1. Cap. 22. 
The Gauls are of opinion that the Majestj^ of the immortal g-ods cannot be 
appeased unless the life of a man be g-iven for the life of jiian.'* 
* De Ponto Lib. 1. Eleg. 1. 7.—" You see that he who duly repents of his 
" offence, often alleviates his punishment, and recovers his lost light. — Al- 
" though therefore it is not due to our merits, yet there is great hope in the 
goodness of God." 

22 



170 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



I. Say some, if the case is so apparent thai all have sinned, and 
the relief is so hid, that nature's light could not discern it ; whence 
is it that all men run not to despair and take sanctuary here ? 
Whence is it that religious worship was universally continued in 
the world ? Yea, whence is it that such a worship universally ob- 
tained, that seems founded on the supposition of a placable God ? 

To this specious argument ^ve answer, that many things there 
are in nature, whereof we can give no satisfying account. And if 
there should prove soraethiog in morality too, not to be accounted 
for, it were not to be wondered at. But not to insist on this, I 
answer directly. A fair account may be given of this otherwise 
than by admitting what we have overthrown upon so many clear 
arguments. Towards which, we shall make the following attempt: 
1 . The natural notices of a Deity, that are inlaid in the minds of 
men, strongly prompted them to worship some one or other. 
From, this natural obligation they could not shake themselves loose. 
9.. Their ignorance and darkness as to the real horror of the case, 
made them think iittie of sin, and consequently apprehend that it 
would not prove such an obstruction to acceptance, as really they 
had reason to apprehend it was. 3. All who allow of revelation, 
own that the revelation of forgiveness, as well as the means of 
obtaining it, w^as twice universal in the days of Adam and Noah. 
4. Though this revelation was in so far lost by the generality of 
mankind, that it could not be useful to its proper end, yet some- 
whdi of it still remained in the world, and spread itself with man- 
kind. 5. All sorts of men found their interest and account in 
keeping it up. The priests who engrossed the advantage of the 
religion of the world, found their gain in it. The politicians who 
aimed at the good of society, found it useful to their purpose. The 
poets who aimed at pleasing, found it capable of tickling the ears of 
a world involved in sin. And the people whose consciences were 
harrassed with guilt of atrocious crimes, found some sort of relief. 
And what all found some benefit by, was not likely quite to be lost. 
The philosophers seeing the strait of the case, saw that they 
could not make a better of it and so acquiesced. 6. Their pro- 
fane conceptioDS cf the deities, as if they were persons that allow- 
ed or practised their evils, did help forward. The gods which 
their own fancy had framed, they could cast into what mould they 
pleased, as it best suited their interest or inclinations. 7. Satan, 
Vv'ho acted a very visible part among them, and bore sway without 
controul, no doubt had a deep hand in the matter, and could vari- 
ously revive, alter and manage the tradition, natural notices and 
interests of men, so as to make his own advantage of them. Other 
things might be added, shewing the concernment of the holy God 
in this matter, which 1 shall wave for some reasons that are satis- 
fying to myself. But what is said, I conceive sufficient to blunt 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 171 



the edge of the objection. I shall only subjoin the words of the 
learned Amyrald, who after he has owned the natural discoveries 
of placability ; but withal shown their uselessness, and that they 
had no influence nor could have, in the words formerly quoted, at 
length he moves this same objection that we have here proposed, 
and returns the answer, which we shall now transcribe, though it 
is somewhat long, the rather because it comes from a person not 
only of great learning, but one who owned placability might be 
demonstrated by the liglit of nature, and yet denies that it was 
the foundation of the religion that was to be found in the world. 
" But perhaps (says he) it will here be demanded, whence then 
" came it to pass that all nations have each of them had its reli- 
" gion ? And why are not all men dissociated instead of hanging 

together in religious society ? To which I answer,, that the 
" mind of man is never agitated with the same emotions, nor con- 
" stant in the same thoughts ; the same passion not always pos- 

sessing him, nor the same vice. They take their turns, or suc- 
" ceed and mingle one with another. Two things therefore have hin- 
" dered that men, though possessed with fear, have not abandoned 
" all service of the Deity — profaneness and pride : God permitting 

the profaneness of some and the presumption of others to tem- 

per the terror of conscience. First, profaneness ; because not 
*' weighing sufficiently how much God abominates vice, and how 
*' inexorable his justice is, they often have flattered themselves 
" with this thought, that he scarce takes any notice of small of- 
" fences, and such as are in the intention and purpose only, that 
" is, in the aflfections of the will and not in actions really execut- 
*' ed. Moreover, they thought he was not much incensed, but with 
" crimes that turn to some notable detriment to the common- 
" wealth, or carry some blot of infamous improbity. Although 
" masculine lust was either justified or excused, or tolerated by 
" the most civilized people of Greece. And they were some- 

times so besotted in their devotions, that they thought not but 
" crimes of the greatest turpitude w^ith no great difficulty might 
" be expiated by their sacrifices, lustrations, religious processions, 
" mysteries and bacchanal solemnities. On the other side, pre- 
sumption ; because not sufficiently acknowledging how much 
" they owed to the Deity, they imagined that their good works, 
" their offerings, and the exercise of that shadow of virtue, which 
" they pursued, might countervail the offences they committed : 
so that were they balanced together, there might be hope not 
" only to avoid punishment, but moreover to obtain recompence. 
" Upon w^ Inch ground it was that Socrates being near his end, 
and discoursing of the immortality of the soul, speaks largely of 
" his hope, (in case the soul be not extinguished with the body) 
to go and live with Hercules and Palaniedes, and the other per- 



172 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



sons of high account. But as to asking God pardon of the 
*• offences he had committed, he makes no mention at all of it ; 
^* because though he spoke always dissemblinglj of himself, he 
had in the bottom of his soul great opinion of his own virtue, 
and made no great reckoning of his vices, from which notwith- 
standing he was no more exempt than others. And had his life 
been of such purity, that the eyes of men could not discern a 
blot in it (although some have written infamous matters of him) 
yet when the account is to be made up with God, there needs 
** another perfection of virtue than that of his to satisfy so exact 
a justice. But yet further, oftentimes these two vices of pro- 
** faneness aiid presumption have met together in the same sub- 
ject, and lulled men with vain hopes into absolute supinity. 
Whence the excess of fear hath been retrenched, which would 
*• otherwise have at last turned into despair, and consequently not 
only dissipated all communion in religion, but likewise ruined all 
*' human society. For fear restraining man on the one side from 
^' absolutely contemning the Deity by profaneness, on the other 
side, profaneness and presumption hindered it from precipi- 
tating men into that furious despair which would have over- 
thrown all, and cciused more horrible agitations in the mind of 
man, than ever the mostVoutrageous Bacchides were sensible of. 
So that by the mixture, vicissitude and variation of these di- 
verse humours has religion been maintained in the world. But 
" it is easy to judge how sincere that devotion was, which was 
bred of fear, (a passion that is naturally terminated in hatred) 
self-presumption, and misapprehension of the justice of God. 
Whereas the certain knowledge of the remission of sins, of 
which the special revelation from heaven can only give us as- 
sured hope, is a marvellous powerfully attractive to piet}', out of 
gratitude towards so inestimable a goodness."^ 
II. Some object against what has been proven, That God is 
good, compassionate and kind ; and that natures of any excellency 
take pleasure in exercising mercy, compassion and kindness, and 
with difficulty are brought to acts of severity. 

I answer, 1 . The goodness, kindness, mercy and compassion of 
God are a pretty subject for men to declaim and make harangues 
about. But when they are made, they are little to the purpose ; 
for they are easily answered by a representation of the justice and 
holiness of God. And the difficulty is not touched, unless men 
can shew how these seemingly jarring attributes may be consistent. 
2. The inferences men must draw from such representations of the 
nature of God, are such as will cross the experience of mankind 
who want revelation, and see many effects of his beuritv. goodrf 

* Amrrald of Relicr. P.irt 1. Clmp. 7. pa^c 254, 255, 256. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 11 



jforbeararice and patience, but none of his pardoning mercy ; and 
many of his justice and holy severity. Wherefore we may leave 
this subject and proceed, though raucli might be said to ckar how 
Mttie all this is to the purpose. But we conceive this is apparent 
from what has been above discoursed, 

III. It is said, " That the very command of God to use his ap- 
" pointed means for men's recovery, doth imply that it shall not 

be in vain ; and doth not only sliew a possibility, but so great a 
" hopefulness of success to the obedient, as may encourage them 
cheerfully to undertake it, and carry it through.^" 
In answer to this, I have above cleared, that men are still oblig- 
ed to obey ; that there are many things, of which several are by 
him mentioned in the subsequent sections of that chapter, whence 
these words are quoted, which might be improven to excite man to 
a cordial compliance, in case there were a new, clear and plain in- 
vitation to a return with hope of acceptance. And I admit, that 
to deny this, as he says, in the words immediately proceeding those 
now quoted, were to make earth a hell. Yea further, so long as 
men are out of hell, there is still a possibility in the case : but that 
there is any such invitation given, or assurance of a hopeful issue, 
or means directly and specially instituted by God as means of re- 
covery, knowable by men left to the mere light of nature, I deny ; 
because I see not the shadow, of a proof and evidence to the con- 
trary that has been offered. 

IV. It is alledgedby the same author. That God's commanding 
us to forgive others, encourages us to expect forgiveness at his 
hand. 

To this I say, 1 . The learned person owns, " That from this 
" it doth not follow, that God must forgive all, which he bindeth 
" us to forgive, for reasons he had before expressed." 2. I say, 
that this, the command of God to forgive othei-s, lies not so open 
to the view of nature's light, as that eveiy one can discern it.-r- 
And besides, it admits of many exceptions, for ought that unas- 
sisted nature can discover. 3. It is restricted to private persons, 
and is not to be extended to pubhc injuries done against govern- 
ment. 4. When it is found to be our duty by nature's light, we 
are brought to see it by such reasons as these, That we need the 
like favour at their hands, that we are frail, &c. which gives us 
gi'ound to be jealous that the like is not to be expected at his hand, 
with whom these things have no place, which are the reason of tho 
law to us. So that from this, as it is discoverable by nature's light, 
no sure inference can be drawn. 



;* Baxter's Reasons of Christ. Rclig. Part 1. Chap. 17. § 9. page 186^. 



174 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



V. It is objected, That sacrifices and all the religious services 
amongst the Heathens, were only symbolical of a good life and re- 
pentance.^' 

To this I say, I . If this were true, Herbert and the Deists are 
much in the wrong to the priests who urged the use of them, as 
men who neglected to inculcate repentance. For any thing I can 
see they were more commendable than the pliilosophers, who nei- 
ther taught nor practised repentance, and vilified sacrifices. But 
2. Tliis is a scandalous falsehood ; for there is nothing more evi- 
dent, than that by the sacrifices they designed to atone the deities, 
and expected that they should be accepted in place of the offerers, 
and their death be admitted instead of what they had deserved 
themselves. See abundance of testimonies given to this by him to 
whom we refen'ed, when we quoted Ccesars testimony to this pur- 
pose ; I mean Outram^ What, I pray, meant the custom that 
prevailed, not only among the Jews, but Heathens, of offering their 
sacrifices with solemn prayers to God, that all the plagues which 
they or their country had deserved, might light on the head of the 
victim ; and so they themselves escape ? And hereupon they 
thought that all their sins did meet upon it, and defile it to that de- 
gree, that none who had touched it dared to return home till they 
had washed and purified themselves. Suidas reports of the Greeks, 
*' Quod, el, qui malis overruncandis quotannis destinatus erat, sic 
" imprecahantur, sis Tript^iiy^cc nostrum, hoc est, saliis ^ redenvp- 

tio, Atque ita ilium in mare projiciebant, quasi Neptuno sacrum 
" persolve?ites,^'f Servius tells us, " Massilieness, quoties pesti- 
" lentia lahorahant, unus se ex pauperibus offerebat, alendus anno 
" integro publicis 8c purioribus cibis. Hicpostea, ornatus verbe- 
" nis Sr vestibus sacris, circumducebatur per totam civitatem cum 
" execraiionibus, ut in ipsum redder ent mala iotius civitatis ; 8r 
" sic projiciebatur.'''l But we have stayed too long in mfuting 
this mad and ungrounded conceit. 

VI. Some, to prove that the works of providence, particularly 
his forbearance to sinners and bounty to them, do call men to re- 
pentance without the word, urge the apostle's vrords, Rom. ii. 4. 
Ordespisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and 

* See A. Letter, Oracles of Reason. 

t ** They cursed the person who was yearly appointed for averting" misfor- 
*' tunes, in this manner, " Bq thou our atonement," that is, our sdety and 
*' redemption ; and so tliey threw him into the sea, as performing- a sacrifice 
" to Neptune." 

+ " As often as the Massilians were afflicted with the pestilence, one of 
" the poor offered himself, who was to be nourished for a whole year with 
** clean victuals, at the public expence, after which being adorned with ver- 
" vains and sacred g-arments, he was led round the whole city vrith execra- 
" tions, tliat the misfortunes of tlie whole city miglit fall upon him, and thus 
" he was cast out." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 175 



long'Suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee 
to repentance ? To this we answer, 

1. Divines, and these not a few, nor of the lowest form, do un- 
derstand this whole context of the Jews ; and they urge reasons 
for it that are not contemptible. If this opinion hold, no more 
can be drawn from these words, than what has been already grant- 
ed without any prejudice to our cause, viz. that this dispensation, 
where persons are otherwise under a call to repentance, gives time 
to repent, and enforceth the obligation of that call they are under. 

2. But to cut off all pretence of any plea from this scripture, we 
shall take under our consideration the apostle's whole discoui^se, 
from the 16th ver. of the 4th chap, to the 4th ver. of the 3d, and 
give a view of these words, and other passages insisted on to the 
same purpose, with a special eye to the apostle's scope in the dis- 
course, and the particular design of every passage. And this we 
shall undertake, not so much out of any regard to this objection in 
particular, but to obviate the abuse of several passages of this dis- 
course of the apostle, by whom we shall have just now occasion to 
debate almost every verse in this second chapter. If, therefore, 
our solution of the apostle's discourse seem a little tedious at pre- 
sent, this disadvantage will be compensated by the hght it will con- 
tribute for clearing many of the ensuing ob jections. 

The apostle Paul, Rom. i. 1 6. had asserted, that the gospel is 
the power of God to salvation to ever?/ one that believes^ to the Jew 
first, and also to the Greek, that is, it is the only pov/erful mean of 
salvation to persons of all sorts ; neither Jew nor Greek can be 
saved by any other mean. In the I7th verse, he advances an ar- 
gument for proof of this assertion, which is plainly this, that reve- 
lation, which exhibits the righteoiisness of God, which is the only 
righteousness that can please God, and on the account whereof he 
accepts and justifies sinners ; and which exhibits this righteousness, 
not upon slender or conjectural grounds, but from faith, that is, 
upon the testimony of the faithful God, who can neither be de- 
ceived nor deceive us, proposes this righteousness to our faith, as 
the only powerful mean of salvation : but it is the gospel only that 
doth reveal this righteousness ol' God from faith, or upon the 
credit of divine testimony unto faith : therefore the gospel is the 
only powerful mean of God's appointment. 

This is plainly the apostle's argument ; and if we consider it, 
we will find it to comprize three assertions ; 1 . That the righteous- 
ness of God revealed in the gospel, and received by faith, is that, 
on the account whereof, sinners are accepted with and justified be- 
fore God. This is one branch of his first proposition, which he 
designs to explain and confirm afterwards, at length. Here he only 
confirms it by hinting a proof of it from the prophet Habakkuk's 
•words, the just shall live hy faith, that is, faith receiving the 



176 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



figtheousness of God revealed in the promise, is the foundation of 
all the godly, tlieir hopes of pardon, peace with God, grace to sup- 
port under trials, and a merciful deliverance from them. As it is 
by these things they live in troublesome times, so it is the accept- 
ance of this righteousness, that gives them any right to these ad- 
vantages. 2. His first proposition implies this assertion, that this 
righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, is the only effectual 
mean of acceptance with and justification before God ; or, that 
there is no other way wherein any of the children of men may ob- 
tain those advantages, save this way of acceptiug by faith the 
righteousness of God, upon the credit or faith of his testimony ; 
tliia is the other branch of his first proposition, 3. The apostle 
asserts in this argument, that the gospel doth reveal this righteous- 
ness of God ; on which, and on which only, acceptance with and 
juslification before God are to be obtained, from faith to faith. — 
This is the apostle's assumption or second proposition. 

The apostle having hinted for the present, at a sufficient proof of 
the first of these assertions, as has been said, passes it. He lays 
aside likewise the third of these assertions, designing to clear it 
afterwards, and addresses himself to the proof of the second in the 
ensuing discourse from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. iii. ver. 20. or 
thereabout. 

The proposition then which our apostle spends the whole context 
under consideration in proof of, is, " That there is no other way 
V/ hereby a sinner can obtain justification before, or acceptance with 
God, but by faith:" Or that neither Gentiles nor Jews can be 
justified before God by their own works." 

This he demonstrates. First, Against the Gentiles in particular, 
from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. ii. ver. 16. according to our present 
supposition, or concession of his adversaries. Next, he proves the 
same in particular against the Jews, chap. ii. to ver. 8. of chap. iii. 
And from thence to the close of his discourse he demonstrates the 
same in general against all mankind whether Jews or Gentiles. 

Firsts Then, he demonstrates against the Gentiles in particular, 
that they cannot be justified before God by the works they may 
pretend to have done in obedience to the law of nature, by the 
ensuing arguments, which we shall not reduce into form ; but only 
propose the force of them, by laying down in the most natural and 
easy order, the propositions v/hereof they do consist. 

1. The apostle insinuates, ver. 18. that the Gentile* had some 
notions of truth concerning God, and the worship due to him from 
the liaht of nature, ver. 18. though tbey imprisoned them: and 
what here lie insinuates, he directly proves ver. 19, 20. 

2. He assert?, that they did not walk answerably to these no- 
tices, but detained them in unrighteousness ; that is, they sup- 
pressedj bore them dov/n, and would not allow them that directive 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 177 



power over their practices which they claimed ; but in opposition 
io them went on in sin. This he had intimated in general, ver. 18^ 
and he proves it, ver. 21, 22, 23. 

3. He proves, that the iVrath of God,, is revealed from Heaven^ 
especially by instances of spiritual plagues, the most terrible of 
all judgments, against them for their counteracting those notices of 
Iruthi This he also intimated, ver. 18. and proves it, ver. 24, 
25, 26. 

4. He shews, that the Gentiles being thus, by the just judgment 
of God, given up and left to themselves, did run on from evil to 
t^ orse in all sorts of abominations ; and therefore did render theit* 
own condemnation the more sure, inevitable and intdlerable. This 
he does from ver. 26 to 32. 

5. confirm this further, ver. 32, he shews that the fact 
cannot be denied, in regard that they both practised those ey'ik 
themselves, and made themselves guilty by their virtual approba- 
tion of tliem in others : nor could it be excused, since they could 
not but know, if they attended to the light of nature^ that such 
gross abominations are pjorthy of death. 

6. The apostle having in the last verse of chap* i. mentioned 
this aggravation of their sins, that they were against knowledge, 
takes occasion thence to proceed to a new argument, whereby he 
lit once confirms what he had said about their sinning against know- 
ledge, chap. i. ver. 32. and further evinces his main point, that 
they must inevitably be condemned by a ne\y argument, which he 
lays down in the ensuing assertion, either expressed or insinuated. 

(1 .) He takes notice, that the Gentiles, if he speaks of them, 
do themselves practise those thingSj which they judge and con- 
demn others for, 

(2.) He takes it for gfanted, as w^ell he may, that he who con- 
demns any practice of another, doth confess that that practice in 
itself is worthy of condemnation. 

(3.) He hereon infers, that the Gentiles do practise those things, 
which, according to their own acknowledgment, are in themselves 
worthy of condemnation. Now this conclusion directly fixes upon 
them the aggravation mentioned in the close of the proceedins: 
chapter, viz. That they know the things th^y do to be worth]/" of 
death. And this sufficiently clears the connection. 

(4.) He argues again, that the judgment of God being always 
according to truth, he will certainly condemn all, who do thing's 
that in truth are worthy of condemnation, ver. 2^ \ 

(5.) Hereon by an inevitable consequence, ver. 3, he con- \, 
eludes, that God will certainly condemn the Gentiles, which is thd V 
main point. 

(6.) As an inference fi'om the w^hole, he concludes, that as any 
prospect of escape is vain, so they are precluded from all excuse^ 



178 



AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 



or shadow of ground for reclaiming against tlie sentence of God, 
which, by their own acknowledgment, proceeds only against prac- 
tices, that are in truth worthy of condemnation. 

7. The apostle having thus locked them up, as it were, under, 
unavoidable condemnation, proceeds ver. 4. to cut off their retreat 
• o that, wherein som6 of them took sanctuary. They concluded, 
thcJt God who did forbear them, while they went on in sin, and al- 
lowed them to share so deep in his goodness, would not punish 
them so severely. To cut off this plea, the apcistle first taxes 
them as guilty of a grievous abuse of this dispensation, while they 
drew encouragement from it to go on in sin. 2. He argues 
them of gross ignorance of the genuine tendency of this deaHng of 
God. To argue thus, " God spares me and is good to me, there- 
fore I may safely sin against him, and hope for his impunity in 
committing known sin, against him," is mad and unreasonable. — 
Beason would say, " God forbears me and so gives me time ; he 
adds to former obligations I lay under to obey him by loading me 
with new kindnesses, therefore I should be the more studious to 
please him, and avoid these things which I know will be offensive 
to him, and be ashamed for former offences." This by the way 
is the full import of that expression, The goodness of God leading 
to repentance. But of this more anon. 3. Hereon ver. 5. he 
infers that their abuse of this dispensation and their not returning 
to obedience, or answering the ol3ligations laid on them increases 
their guilt, and so lays up materials for an additional libel, and a 
more highly accented punishment, ver. 5. 

Having tlius shortly given an account of the scope and mean- 
ing of the words, i shall next lay down a few short observations 
clearly subversive of any argument that can be drawn from them. 

(1.) IN. one can say, that the persons, who were under this dis- 
pensation did, in fact, understand it to import a call to repentance. 
The apostle accuses them of ignorance of this, and of abusing it 
by drawing encouragement from it, that they should escape pun- 
ishment, though they went on in sin. 

(2.) It is plain the apostle's scope led him to no more, but this, 
to evince, that this dispensation afforded them no ground to hope 
for impunity, no encouragement to proceed in a course of known 
sin, that it did aggravate the guilt of their continuance in such sins, 
and enforce the obligations they otherwise were under to absti- 
nence from them, and the practice of neglected duties. This is 
all the words will bear, and all that the scope requires. 

(3.) The apostle is proving, as we have clearly evinced above, 
that the persons, with whom he is now dealing, without recourse 
to the gospel revelation, are shut up from all access to justifica- 
tion before God, acceptance with him, pardon and salvation ; cer- 
tainly therefore he cannot in this place be understood to intend 



PRINCIPIiES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 179 



that these persons were under means sufficient to lead them to 
that repentance, upon which they might be assured of forgiveness 
and peace with God. 

(4.) This same apostle elsewhere appropriates the call to re- 
pentance unto the gospel revelation, Acts xvii. 30. speaking to 
the Heathens at Athens, he says, the times of this ignorance God 
winked at ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent. — 
Here it is plain, that men left to the light of nature, are left with- 
out this call, until the gospel come and give this invitation. 

[5.] Wherefore we may from the particular scope of this verse, 
the general scope of the apostle's discourse, and his plain declara- 
tions upon other occasions, conclude, 1. That the repentance he 
here intends, is not that repentance to which the promise of par- 
don is in the gospel annexed ; but only an abstinence from these 
evil, which their consciences condemn them for, and the return 
to some sort of performance of the material part of known, but 
deserted duty. Frequent mention is made of such a repentance 
in scripture ; but no where is pardon promised upon it. 2. This 
leading imports no more, but that the dispensation we speak of dis^ 
covers this return to be duty, and gives space or time for it. 

[6.] To confirm what has been now said, it is to be observed, 
that our apostle acquaints, that this forbearance and goodness is ex- 
ercised towards the vessels of wrath fitted to destitiction, Rom. ix. 
22. wliich sufficiently intimates that this dispensation of itself 
gives no assurance of pardon to these who are under it, but is con- 
sistent with a fixed purpose of punishing them. Yet without this 
assurance, it is impossible there should ever be any call to repen- 
tance, that can be available to any of m^ankind, or answer the hy- 
pothesis of those with whom we have to do. 

8. Ill the close of ver. 5. the apostle introduces a discourse of 
the last judgment for two ends : First, To cut off those abusers of 
God's goodness from all hopes of escape. He has before shewed 
that they have stored up sins, the causes of wrath ; and here he 
shews there is a judgment designed, wherein they will reap as they 
have sowT.. Thus the words following are a confirmation of the 
foregoing argument, and enforce the apostle's main scope. Secondly, 
He does it for clearing the righteousness of God from any impu- 
tatic^i that the dispensation he had been speaking of, viz. his for- 
bearance and goodness towards sinners, might tempt blind men to 
throw upon it : and this he does by shewing that this is not the 
time of retribution, but that there is an open and solemn distribu- 
tion designed, wherein God will fully clear his righteousness. Tc 
these two ends is this whole account of the last judgment suited. 
He tells them that there is a day of wrath and of the revelation of 
the righteous judgment of God. While he speaks of the revela- 
tion of the righteous judgment of God, he tacitly grants that by 



180 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



this dispensation of forbearance, the righteousness of God's judg- 
ment is some way clouded or under a veil : but withall he intimates 
that there is a definite time, a day fixed for its manifestation ; and 
that this day will prove a day of wrath, that is, a day wherein the 
vindictive justice of God will signally manifest itself, in punishing 
such sinners, as they were with whom he deals. In short he ac- 
quaints them, that the design of this day is to reveal the righteous 
judgment of God, that is, to manifest to the conviction of angels 
and men, the righteousness of God's proceedings toward the chil- 
dren of men, particularly as to rewards and punishments. It will 
be righteous, and therefore such sinners as they shall not escape, 
it will be revealed to be such ; and so all ground of calumny will be 
taken away. To clear this, he gives an account of the concern^ 
nients of that judgment, in so far as it is to his purpose ; wherein, 

(1.) He teaches, that there will be an open retribution of re- 
wards and punishments, God will render, &c. 

(2.) He shews that God will proceed in this retribution upon 
open and incontestible evidence. He will render according to 
works. The persons who are to be punished shall, to the con- 
viction of on-lookers, be convicted by their works of impiety ; and 
the piety of those to whom the rewards are given, shall in hke man- 
ner be cleared. 

(3.) He acquaints them, that the distribution shall be suitable 
to the character of the persons, the nature and quality of their 
works. He will render according to their works ; that is evil to 
the evil ; good to the good. This is all that is intended by xatu, 
secundum, or according : the meaning is not that he will render 
according to the merit of their works. For though I own that 
God will punish according to the just demerit of sin ; yet that is 
not intended here by this phrase according to works : for the word 
in its proper signification intimates, not strict or universal propor- 
tion betwixt the things connected by it ; m-uch less doth it parti- 
cularly import, that the one is the meritorious cause of the other ; 
but the word is, in all languages, commonly taken in a more lax 
signification, to denote any suitableness betwixt the things con- 
nected by it. So our Lord says to the blind men, Matth. xix. 
29. According to your faith he it unto you. Who will say that 
any faith, but especially such a lame one as we have reason to 
think they had, did merit that miraculous cure ; or that if was 
every way suitable unto it ? Since then the word of itself does 
not import thi;^', it cannot be taken so here, unless either other 
scriptures determine us to this sense, or something in the context 
fix this to be the meaning of it. To take it in this sense as to re- 
wards, is so far from having any countenance from other scriptures, 
that it is directly contrary to the whole current of them. And 
v'hen the word is tJ^ken in this sense, then the scriptures plainly 



i^RINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 181 

leil us;.that we are not saved or rewarded hij or according to our 
works^^f righteousness, but according to his mercy through Jesus 
Christ, Tit. iii. 5, 6. Nor is there any thing in the text or con- 
text to incline us to take it in this sense, but much on the contrary 
to demonstrate that this is not the meaning, at least with respect to 
rewards : for to say, that the reward shall be given us according 
to our works, that is, for our works, as meritorious of it, flatly 
contradicts the apostle's scope, which is to prove, that all mankind, 
Jews and Gentiles, do by their works merit only condemnation, and 
that none can expect upon them absolution, much less reward. — 
Besides, the works here principally intended are not all our works, 
nor these, which if any had, Avould have the fairest pretence to 
merit, viz. the inward actings of grace, faith, love, &c. but out- 
ward works that are evidences of the inward temper and frame of 
the actors. This is evident from the word itself, from the 
particular instances elsewhere condescended upon, when the 
last judgment is spoken of, and from the design of this general 
judgment. 

(4.) He shews, that this retribution will be universal, to every 
one, Si-c. 

(5.) He illustrates further the righteousness of it, ver. 7. . by 
characterizing the persons who are to be rewarded, they are sucfi 
as do well, that is, whose actions openly speak them good, and 
evidence the honesty of the principle whence they flow ; the}' 
continue in well doing, their walk is uniform and habitually good ; 
flowing from a fixed principle, and not from an external accidental 
cause ; they continue patiently in this course, in oposition to all 
discouragements : nor do they aim at worldly advantage, but at 
that glory, honor and hninortality, which God sets before them. — 
None but they, who are perfectly such, shall have a reward, if it 
is sought for, according to the tenor of the covenant of works : 
and in this sense not a few, nor they obscure interpreters, do take 
the words ; as if the apostle had said, if there be any among you, 
who have perfectly obeyed, ye shall be rewarded : but whereas, I 
Jiave cleared that none of you are such, ye are cut ofl" from any 
expectation of reward. But if the sincerity of obedience is only 
intended, then the meaning is that God will of his grace, according 
to his promise, and not for their works, give the reward to the 
sincerely obedient ; and thereby will openly evince his righteous- 
ness, in dealing with them exactly according to the tenor of the 
covenant, to which they belong ; so that no person, who has any 
just claim to reward founded upon either covenant, shall want it. 

(6.) To clear the glory of God's righteousness further, he spe- 
cifies the reward, viz. eternal life, a reward sufficient to compen- 
sate any losses they have been at, evidence Goal's love to holiness, 
end his regard to his promises?. 



182 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



(7.) He, in like manner, clears the matter further, by giving a 
description, ver. 8. of the persons, who are to be condemned, 
which evinces the apparent righteousness of the sentence to be 
passed against them. They are such against whom it will be made 
evident, that they have been contentious, that is, that they have 
opposed and suppressed the truths they knew, stifled conviction;?, 
and detained them in unrighteousness : such as have not obeyed 
the truth, or walked up to their knowledge, but have obeyed un- 
righteousness, following the inclinations of their corrupt hearts. 
As if the apostle had said, the persons who are to be rewarded 
are of a character that ye can lay no manner of claim to, but your 
character is perfectly that of those who are to be condemned. 

[8.] He specifies the punishment, indignation and wrath. 

[9.] To fix the truth and importance of this deeper upon their 
minds, he repeats and enlarges upon this assertion, ver. 9, 10. 
thereby assuring them that the matter is infallibly certain, and to 
give a further evidence of the righteousness of God, he adjects a 
clause and repeats it twice over, viz. first to the Jerj and also to 
the Gentile, wherein he shews the impartiality of God's proceed- 
ings. He will not suffer one soul, who has any just claim to re- 
ward, to go unrewarded, be he Jew or Gentile. He will not allow 
one sinner, to whom punishment belongs, to escape unpunished. 
The Jews' privilege shall not save them, if guilty, but judgment 
shall begin first at the house of God ; nor shall the bare want of 
privileges prejudge the Gentiles. 

[10.] To confirm this he adduces an argument from the nature 
of God, ver. 11. viz. that with him there is no respect of pei sons, 
that is, no unjust partiality, towards persons, upon considerations, 
that do not belong unto the rule, whereby the cause is to be tried. 

[11.] To strengthen this and obviate objections, ver. 12. he 
asserts, that God will proceed impartially in judging them accord- 
mg to the most unexceptionable rule. He v/ill condemn the Jews 
for their transgressions of that law, which he gave to them. He 
will condemn the Gentiles, not for the transgression of the written 
law which they had not, but for their sins against the law of na- 
ture which they had. And so neither of them shall have ground 
to except against the rale, according to which God proceeds with 
them. 

[12.] Hence he takes occasion, ver. 13. to repel an objection or 
plea of the Jews, who might fancy that they should not be pun- 
ished or perish, to whom God had given the privilege of the writ- 
ten law. To cut of this plea he tells them, that where persons 
expect justification by the law, it is not the knowledge of the law, 
or hearing of it, but obedience to it that will be sustained. Here 
he does not suppose that any shall be justified by doing the law ; 
say, he proves the contrary. It is marJfeytly bis design, in the 



PRINCIPLES OF THE 3I0DERN DEISTS. 183 



whole discourse, to do so : but he shews that the plea of the Jews, 
that they had the law, is insufficient ; as if he had said, be 
it granted, that justification is to be had by the law ; yet even 
upon that supposition, ye have no title to it, unless ye perfectly 
obey it. The law pleads for none, but those who do so. And 
since none of you do thus obey it, as shall be evinced anon, ve 
must perish, as I said, ver. 12. 

[18.] Whereas the Gentiles might plead, it would be hard treat- 
ment if they should be condemned, since they were without the 
law ; he demonstrates that they could not except against their own 
condemnation upon this ground, because although they wanted the 
written law, yet they have another law, viz. that of nature ; for 
the breaches of which they might justly be condemned. That 
they had such a law he proves against them, ver. I4. 15. First, 
From their practice : be tells them that by the guidance of mere 
nature they did the works of the law, that is, they performed the 
material part of some of the duties which the law enjoins, and 
thereby evidenced acquaintance with the law, or as he words it, 
shew the work of the law written in their hearts, that is, the 
remainders of their natural light, or reason, performs the work of 
the law commanding duty, and forbidding sin. Secondh/, He 
proves that they have such a law from the working of their con- 
science. He whose conscience accuses him for not doing some 
things, and approves him for doing other things, knows that he was 
obliged to do the one and omit the other, and consequently has 
some knowledge of the law. This is the apostle's scope, ver. 14. 
15. So that for, in the beginning of ver. 14. refers to and ren- 
ders a reason of the first clause of ver. 12. that they who had 
sinned without law, viz. the written law, shall perish without law, 
that is, not for violating the written law, v»'hich they had not. 

[14.] Having removed these objections, he concludes his ac- 
count of the last judgment, ver. 16. wherein he gives them an ac- 
count, 1st, To whom it belongs originally to judge, it is God. 
2dl7/, Who the person is to whom the visiljle administration is 
committed, it is Jesus Christ. Sdli/, What the matter of that 
judgment is, or what will be judged, it is the secrets of hearts. Al- 
though works will be insisted upon as evidences for the conviction 
of on-lookers, of the righteousness of God in his distribution of 
rewards and punishments ; yet the secrets of men will also be laid 
open, for the further confusion of sinners, and justification of the 
severity of God against them. 

Secondly, Now the apostle having proven, that the Gentiles are 
all under condemnation, and so cannot be justified by any \^orks 
they can do ; and having likewise removed some exceptions of 
the Jews that fell in his way, he proceeds next directly to prove 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



the same against the Jews in particular, and answers their objec- 
tions from chap. ii. ver. 17. to chap. iii. ver. 8. inclusive. 

To prove this charge against the Jews, he makes use only of 
one argument, which yet is capable of bearing the weight of many 
conclusions or inferences. To understand this, we must take no- 
tice, that the apostle is dealing here v/ith the Jews, who sought to 
be justified by works. And, 

1. By way of concession, he grants them several privileges 
above the Gentiles from ver. 17. to ver. 20. inclusive, viz. That 
they were called Jews ; that they had the law, on which they 
rested and pretended some peculiar interest in God, as being ex- 
ternally in covenant vrith him, ver. 17. of which they boasted ; 
that they had some knowledge of the law, and pretended them- 
selves capable of guiding others. This lie grants them in a varie- 
ty of expressions, ver. 18, 19, 20, By v,hich the apostle secret- 
ly taxes their vanity, and insinuates, that whatever they had in 
point of privilege, they abused it. 

2. The apostle charges them with a practical contradiction to 
this their knowledge, and this he makes good against them, par- 
ticularly against their highest pretenders, their teachers, 1. My 
condescending on several instances, wherein they w^ere guilty and 
appealing to their consciences for the truth of them, ver. 22, 23. 
which I shall not insist in explaining. 2. He proves it further 
by a testimony of scripture, ver. 24. wherein God complains, that 
their provocations were such, as tempted the Gentiles to hlas- 
2)heme his name. 

This is the argument, the conclusion he leaves to tJiems elves to 
draAv. And indeed it will bear all the conclusions formerly laid 
dow u against the Gentiles. Whate\'er their know^iedge was, they 
were not doers, but breakers of the law, and so could not be jas- 
tified by it, ver. 13. but might expect to perish for their trans- 
gressions of it, according to ver. 12. They sinned against know- 
ledge, and so deserved as severe resentments as the Gentiles, chap, 
i. ver. Ii2. They qpuld not pretend ignorance ; for they taught 
ethers the contrary, and so w^ere without excuse, chap. ii. ver. 1. 

The apostle next proceeds to answ^er their objections. The 
first whereof is brought in, ver. 25. The short of it is this, the 
Jews pretended they had circumcision, the seal of God's cove- 
nant, and so claimed the privileges of it. This objection is nol . 
directly proposed, but the answer anticipating it is iritrodcced as a 
confirmation or reason enforcing the conclusion aimed at, viz. 
That they could not be justified by the law : and therefore it is, 
that we find the c?.sual particle for in the beginning of the verse. 
This much for the manner wherein the obiection ii introduced 
To this c;:^ectioii the apostle ai;>'y.:i = . 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, m 



1. By a concession ; circwncision verily profiteth if thou keep 
the law, that is, if thou perfectly obey the commands, then thou 
mayest in justice demand the privileges of the covenant, and 
plead the seal of it, as a pledge of the faithfulness of God in the 
promises. 

2. He answers directly by shewing, that this seal signified just 
nothing as to their claim of a legal righteousness, because they 
were breaker's of the law. But if thou be a breaker of the law, 
thi/ circumcision is made uncircumcision. The short of the mat- 
ter is this ; this seal is only a conditional engagement of the faith- 
fulness of God : it does not say, thou shall get the privileges 
whether thou perform the condition or not: so that by this means, 
if the condition is not performed, ye have nothing to ask, and ye 
are as remote from a claim to the reward, as they who want the' 
seal. 

3. The apostle, to illustrate and confirm what he had said about 
the unprofitableness of circumcision in case of transgression, 
shews, that a Gentile upon supposition that it were possible, obey- 
ing the law, but wanting the seal of the covenant, would have a 
better title to the privileges promised, than a Jew, who had the 
seal, but wanted the obedience, ver. 26. Therefore if the uncir- 
cumcision keep the righteousness of the law, that is, if a Gentile 
should yield that obedience the law requires, shall not his uncir- 
cumcision, be counted for circumcision ? That is, shall not he, 
notwithstanding he wanteth the outward sign of circumcision, be 
allowed to plead an interest in the blessings promised to obedi- 
ence, and to insist upon the faithfulness of God for the perform- 
ance of the promises made to the obedient, of which circumcision 
is the sign ? The reason of this is plain, circumcision seals the per- 
formance of the promise to the obedient ; the Gentile obeying has 
that, which is the ground whereon the faithfulness of God is en- 
gaged to perform the promise, viz. obedience, and so a real title to 
the thing promised, though he wants the outward sign ; whereas 
the disobeying Jew has only the seal, which secures nothing, but 
upon the condition of that obedience, which he has not yielded. 
This is only spoken by way of supposition, not as if any of the 
Gentiles had yielded such obedience : for he had plainly proven 
the contrary before. The apostle's reason is this — circumcision is 
an engagement for the performance of the promise to the obedient. 
The disobedient Jew has therefore no title to the promise ; where- 
as the Gentile that obeys having that obedience to which the pre- 
mise is made, has a real right to it, and so might expect the per- 
formance of it, as if he had the outward seal. 

4. To clear yet further the unprofitableness of circumcision 
without obedience, the apostle, upon the foresaid supposition, 
shews, that the Gentile obeying would not only have the better ti- 

24 



186 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



tie ; but his obedience would contribute to clearing the justice of 
God, in condemning the disobedient Jew, ver. 27 : And shall not 
uncircumcision which is hy nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee^ 
ivho hy the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law, that 
IS, if a Gentile wanting circumcision and the security thereby giv- 
en, with the other advantages which the Jews have, discover the 
inexcusableness of your disobedience, who have the letter and 
circumcision, or the written law, that is, who have a clearer rule 
of duty and plainer promise. 

5. To remove entirely the foundation of this objection, the 
apostle clears the real design of circumcision, and the chai-acter of 
the person to whom the advantages do belong, ver. 28, 29. where- 
in he shews negatively, that the Jew to whom the promises do be- 
long is not every one who belongs to that nation, or is outwardly a 
Jew ; and that the circumcision, to which the promises are ab- 
solutely made, is not the outward circumcision, which is in the 
flesh, ver. 28 ; but positively, that the Jew, to whom the 
promised blessings belong, is he who is a Jew inwardly, that is, 
who has that inward frame of heart which God requires of his 
people ; and the circumcision, to which blessings are absolutely 
promised, is that inward renovation of heart which is the princi- 
pie of the obedience required by, and accepted of God, ver. 29. 

This objection being removed out of the vvay, the apostle pro- 
ceeds to answer an instance against what he has now Said in the 
three or four first verses of the 3d chap. The objection is pro- 
posed ver. 1. and is in short this. By your reasoning, would the 
Jews say, we have no advantage beyond the Gentiles, and cir- 
cumcision is utterly unprofitable. To this he answers, 

1. By denying flatly what is asserted in the objection, declar- 
ing, notwithstanding of all tills, the Jews had every way the ad- 
vantage. 

2. Lest this should appear a vain assertion, he clears it by an 
instance of the highest consequence, viz. that they had the oracles 
of God, which the Gentiles wanted, wherein that relief against 
transgressions, which the Gentiles were strangers to, is revealed, 
as he expressly teaches afterwards, ver. 21. As if the apostle 
had said, Though ye Jews fail of obedience, and so are cut oft' 
from justification by the law as a covenant of works, yet yc have 
a righteousness revealed to you in the law and the prophets, ver. 
21. to which the sinner may betake himself for relief; this the 
Gentiles who want the law and the prophets know nothing of. 

3. He clears, that this is a great advantage, notwithstanding that 
many of the Jews were not the better for it, ver. 3. thus at once 
anticipating an objection that might be moved, and confirming 
what he had said. What if some did not believe, that is, though 
home have fallen short of the advantages of this revelation, shall 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 187 



we therefore say it was not in itself a privilege ? Nay, it is in 
itself a privilege, and they by their own fault in not believing, 
' have forfeited the advantages of it to themselves only ; for shall 
! their unbelief mjJce the faith of God without effect ? That is, as- 
suredly believejTs will not be the worse dealt with for the unbelief 
of others ; but they will obtain the advantages of the promises. 

We have insisted much longer upon this context than was de- 
signed, but we hope that they who consider that the apostle's ar- 
guments and his whole purposes, are directly levelled at that 
which is the main scope of these papers, will not reckon this a 
I faulty digression. And besides, we shall immediately see the use- 
fulness of this, in order to remove the foundation of a great many 
objections drawn from this context by Mr. Humfrey ; some of 
whose notions we shall consider after we have removed one ob' 
jection more, and it is this : 

VII. The words of the apostle Paul to the Athenians, Acts 
xvii. 27. are made use of for this purpose. The apostle tells them 
in the preceding words, that the God whom he preached, was he 
who made the worldSy hath made of one blood all nations of men, 
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the 
, limes before appointedj and the bounds of their habitation ; that 
% they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after 
him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us : 
for in him we live and move and have our being, The sum of 
what is pleaded from this testimony amounts to this, that men left 
to the Hght of nature are in duty bound to seek the Lord ; that 
God is not so far from, them, but that he may be found ; and that if 
they will feel after him, that is, trace these dark discoveries of 
him, in the works of creation and providence, they may happily 
find liim. 

For answer to this we say, 1 . No word is here to be stretch- 
ed further than the occasion and scope of the apostle requires and 
allows. 2. The occasion of this discourse was, that Paul being at 
Athens, saw that city set upon the worship of idols, and overlook- 
ed the one true God, which moved him with wrath, and gave oc- 
casion to this discourse ; the evident scope whereof is to shew, 
that they were to blame, that they overlooked the true God, and 
gave that worship to idols, which was only to be given to God. 
For convincing them of this, 3. He shews, that the true God, by 
his works of creation and providence had in so far discovered 
himself, that if by these works they sought after the knowledge of 
him, they might find him so far, or know so much, as to under- 
stand that he alone v/as the true God, to whom divine worship was 
due. 4. He owns, that indeed these discoveries were but dark, 
to wit, in comparison of the discoveries he had made of himself in 
the word ; which is sufEcieiitly intimated by that expression of 



188 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



feeling after him., they might find him, so far as to deliver them 
from that gross idolatry and neglect of him they were involved in. 
Here is all that the scope holds out : but he does not say, that 
they might find him, so as to obtain the saving knowledge of him 
by these works of providence ; but on the contrary he tells us, that 
God winked at the times of ignorance, that is, seemed as if he did 
not notice men, and in his holy and sovereign justice left them to 
find by their own experience, which by any means they had, that 
they could not arrive to the saving knowledge of God ; though 
they might, as has been just now said, have gone so far as to dis- 
entangle themselves from that gi'oss idolatry for which he now re- 
proves them. He does not say, that God then called them to 
saving repentance, gave them any discovery of his purpose of 
mercy, and thereon invited them to peace and acceptance : but on 
the contrary, he tells, that now he calls all men everi/ where to re- 
pent, ver. 30. which sufficiently intimates that they had not that 
call before. In a word, it is not that seeking or finding of God, or 
that nearness to God which is here intended, that elsewhere the 
scripture speaks of, when it treats about men's case who are living 
under the gospel, and have God in Christ revealed, and the gos- 
pel call to turn, to seek after and find him to their own salvation ; 
as the scope of the place fully clears. Any one that would see 
this place fully considered, may find it done by the learned Dr. 
Owen, in that accurate, though short digression concerning uni- 
versal grace, inserted in his Theolog. Pantodap. page 33. There 
likewise is that other scripture. Acts xiv. ver. 15, 16, 17. largely 
considered. On which I shall not now insist, seeing there is no- 
thing in it that has the least appearance of opposition to what we 
have asserted, if not that God is there said, not to have left him- 
self without a witness among the nations, in as much as he did 
good to them, gave fruitful seasons, &c. This is granted : but 
these necessaries of life are no v/itness that God designed for them 
mercy and forgiveness, as has been made appear above, and as the 
Spirit of God tells us there ; for God suffered them to walk in 
their own way, 

VIII. Some alledge that there is a law of grace connatural to 
man in his lapsed state, and that in substance it is this. That God 
will pardon sinners upon their repentance : and they tell us, that 
this law of grace is as much written in the heart of lapsed man, as 
the law of nature was written in the heart of innocent man^ To 
this purpose speaks Mr. Humfrey in his Peaceable Disquisitions,^^ 
and that with such an air of confidence, as might make one expect 
better proof than he has offered. 



. * Peace. Disquis. Chap. 4. page 56. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 189 



We shall just now examine Mr. Humfiey's arguments. As to 
the notion itself of a connatural law of grace written in the hearts 
of all mankind in this lapsed condition, we look upon it as abso- 
lutely false. It contradicts scripture, reason and experience. My 
design excuseth me from the use of scripture arguments. Expe- 
rience I need not insist upon, after what has been already said. — 
Reason will not allow us to call any law connatural to man, save 
upon one of these three accounts ; either because we are bora 
with actual knowledge of it ; or, because it lies so open and is so 
suited to our rational faculties, that any man, who has the use of 
reason, can scarce miss thinking of it, at least, refuse his assent to 
it, when it is proposed to him ; or, finally, because it is nearly 
connected with notions and principles that are self-evident, and is 
easily deducible from them. Now this discovery of mercy to sin- 
ners merely upon repentance is connatural in none of these sense?. 
I know no truth that is connatural in the first sense. The ingenious 
Mr. Locke has said enough against this.*' In the second sense, it 
is not connatural. Who will tell me, that this is a self-evident 
proposition, while so great a part of the more knowing and judi- 
cious part of mankind, not only refuse their assent to it, but reject 
it as a plain untruth ? Yea, I doubt if any that understands the 
case, and knows nothing of the satisfaction of Christ, will give his 
assent to it. In this last sense it^s not connatural ; for if it were 
so, it were easy demonstrable by these self-evident principles, to 
which it is nearly allied : which, when Mr. Humfrey shall have 
demonstrated from these principles, or any other for him, we shall 
then consider it ; but this I am apprehensive will never be done. 
In a word, all these truths, which with any tolerable propriety of 
speech can be called connatural, if they are not self-evident, are 
yet such as admit of an easy demonstration. And it is foolish to 
call any truth connatural, unless it is such, as either needs no proof, 
or is easily demonstrable. This is sujfficient to overthrow this 
notion. 

Before we consider the arguments which Mr. Humfrey advan- 
ces for his opinions, I shall offer to the reader a more full view of 
it in his own words. He then asserts, " that there is a connatn- 
" ral law of grace written in the heart of man, that is, that this 
" law of lapsed nature, this law of grace, or remedying law, is 
" written in the heart of man in regard of his fallen nature, no less 
" than the law of pure nature itself was. The law of nature, 
" (says he) as I take it, is the dictates of right reason, declaring 
" to us our duty to God, to ourselves and to our neighbors : and 
" the light of the same reason will dictate to us, when we have 
*^ failed in that duty, to repent and turn to God, with trusting to 



* Essay on Human Understand. Eook 1. 



190 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



^< his mercy and pardon if we do so, and not else. We do find 

it legible in our hearts, that God is good and wisely gracious to 
« consider our lost estate, and pity our infirmities and necessary 
" frailty." After he has told us of a threefold promulgation of 
this law of grace under the Patriarchs, by Moses and Christ, which 
he calls three editions of the same law ; he subjoins, " Now I say, 
" that though the Heathen be not under (or have not) this law of 

grace> in the third and last setting out, or in the state under the 
" gospel ; yet they are under it (or have it) in the state of the 
" ancients, or as they had it in the first promulgation ; and upon 
" supposition that any of them do, according to the light they 
" have, live up in sincerity to this law, I dare not be the man 

that shall deny, that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 

[procuring this law or covenant for them, as for us and all the 
" world] they shall be saved even as we." And a httle before he 
says, " These characters thus engraven in the heart of man, is 
" the same law of grace in its practical contents, which is more 

largely paraphrased upon in the scriptures." 

Surely the apostle Paul had a very different notion of the state 
of the Heathen world from this gentleman, when he tells us em- 
phatically, that they are strangers from the covenants of promise^ 
that the^/ are without God, that is, without the saving knowledge of 
God ; for another sense the word will scarcely bear : that they are 
without Christ, without hope, afar off, &c. But it is not my de- 
sign to offer scripture arguments against this anti-scriptural divinity. 
I leave this to others, and proceed to his proofs : nor shall I in the 
consideration of them take notice of every thing that might be 
justly quarrelled ; but only hint at the main faults. 

1. He reasons to this effect : If there is no connatural law of 
grace written in the heart of man, then none of those who Hved 
before Moses could be saved, in as much as there was then no 
other law by which they could be saved .f This argument he 
borrows from Suarez, and concludes it triumphantly thus, " which 
" is a truth so evident, as makes the proof of that law by that 
reason alone to be good." 

But for all this commendation, I think this argument has a dou- 
ble fault. 1. It proves not the point, viz. that there is a law of 
grace written in the hearts of all men by nature ; but only that 
there was such a law written in their hearts that were saved. This 
argument is built upon a supposition that is plainly false, viz. that 
there was no other way that they could be saved but by the law 
of grace written in their hearts. This, I say, is false ; for they 
were saved by the gospel discovery of Christ in the promise re- 

* Peace. Disquis. Chap. 4, page 56, 5 
7 J'eace. Bisquis. pag-e 56. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 191 



vealed to them by God, and wherein the generality of the Lord's 
people were more fully instructed by the patriarchs, who were 
preachers of righteousness. And this revelation and preaching 
was to them instead of the written word. Thus we see this 
mighty argument proves just nothing. 

2. He reasons from Abraham's pleading with God on behalf of 
the righteous men in Sodom. Here he thinks it evident, that 
there were righteous men. He proves, that there were none 
righteous then, according to the tenor of the covenant of works, 
and therefore concludes, that these righteous persons did belong 
to, and were dealt with according to the covenant of grace.* But 
now what does all this prove ? Does it prove that these men were 
under the covenant of grace, and that they were dealt with accord- 
ing to the tenor of it? Well, I grant it. But what will he infer 
from this, that therefore all the world were under the covenant of 
grace, or shall be dealt with according to its tenor ? I would have 
thought that one who has read Suarez, might know that this coh- 
elusion will not follow. If there had been any righteous men in 
Sodom, it is true they W€re under the covenant of grace ; and I 
add, if there be any such in the world, they are under it ; there- 
fore all the world are so ? Who sees not that this will not follow ? 
Again, supposing that there were righteous men in Sodom, how 
w^ill Mr. Humfrey prove, that they had no other rule of their life, 
or ground of their hope, but his connatural law of gTace ? Why 
might they not have revelation ? Was not Abraham, to whom God 
revealed himself, and made so many gracious promises, well known 
to some in Sodom ? Might not the fame of such a person so near 
easily reach them ? Was not he the deliverer of Sodom some 
eighteen years before, and did not Lot liis friend, who was well 
acquainted with the revelations made to Abraham, live in Sodom ? 

3. Mr. Humfrey tells us, that the law of grace was in Adam 
and Noah's time published to all the world, and that it never was 
repealed, and therefore all the world are still under it, and so in a 
capacity of salvation. f 

But 1 . This, were it granted, will not prove Mr. Ilumfrey's conna- 
tural law of grace. The gospel is revealed to ail the inhabitants of 
England ; therefore the law of grace is written in their hearts : he 
must know very little of many people in England, who will admit 
the consequence. 2. Nor will it prove, that all the world are un- 
der the gospel revelation, even in its first edition, to use Mr. Hum- 
frey's words. Suppose God once revealed to the world, when it 
was comprised in the family of Noah, the covenant of grace, and 
so all this little world had the external revelation : will Mr. Hum^ 



* Peace. Disquis. pag-e 60 
t Ibid, page 62. 



192 



AN IISaumY INTO THE 



frey hence infer, that all the descendants of Noah, after so long a 
tract of time, in so many different natioas, have still the same reve- 
lation ? If he do, the consequence is nought. It is as sure as any 
thing can be, that very quickly most of the descendants of Noah 
lost in so far that revelation, or at least, corrupted it with their 
vain additions to that degree, that it could be of real advantage to no 
man. 3. Nor will what Mr. Humfrey talks of his repeal help out 
his argument. To deprive a people of the advantage of an exter- 
nal revelation, there is no need of a formal repeal by a published 
statute ; it is enough that men by their wickediiess lose all remem- 
brance of it, and suffer it to fall into desuetude, and God sees not 
meet to renew the revelation to them or their posterity. 

4. 3Ir. Humfrey will prove his point by a syllogism, and it runs 
thus. The doers of the law are justified^ Rom. ii. ver. 13. but the 
Gentiles are doers of the law; ergo, some of the Gentiles are justi- 
•fied before God. 

The conclusion of this argument is the direct antithesis of that 
position, which the apostle makes it liis business in that whole con- 
text to prove, as is evident from the account already given of that 
context. This is pretty bold. But let us see how he proves his 
minor. This he pretends to do from Rom. i. 14. where it is said, 
that the Gentiles do hy nature the things contained in the law, and 
so are doers of the law, and consequently shall be justified. 

Well, is this the way this gentleman interprets scripture upon 
other occasions ? I hope not. He has no regard to the scope or 
design of the apostle*s discourse. All that the apostle says here, 
is, that the Gentiles are in so far doers of the law, that their doing 
is proof that they have some knowledge of it. The persons who 
here are said to be doers of the law, are the very same persons of 
whom the apostle says, ver. 12. that they shall perish without the 
law. But we have fully cleared this context before, and thither I 
refer the reader. 

But Mr. Humfrey reforms his argument, and makes it run thus. 
He who sincerely keeps the law, shall be justified according to 
that of our Lord, keep the commandments if thou wilt enter into 
eternal life ; and that of the apostle, God will reader eternal life 
to every one that patiently continues in well-doin^ ; but argues he, 
some Gentiles keep the law sincerely : and therefore it is according 
to the gospel, which requires not the rigor, but accepts of sincere 
obedience. 

As to our author's major, if the meaning of it be, that we shall 
be justified before God for, or upon our sincere obedience, accord- 
ing to the gospel, I crave leave to differ from him ; nor will the 
scriptures adduced by him prove it in this sense. The first is a 
reference of a young man to the covenant of works, who was not 
seeking salvation, but eternal life by doing, in order to discover to 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. m 



him his own inability and his need of Christ. But as to this 
commentators may be cousuitedv The other text I have cleared 
above. 

His minor I flatly deny : well, but our author will prove it by a ^ 
new syllogism, which runs thus, He who yields such obedience as 
the Jews, who are circumcised in heart, do, yields that sincere 
obedience, upon which the gospel accepts and justifies men ; but 
the Gentiles, or some of them yield such obedience. 

I have already entered my dissent against the last clause of the 
major, viz. That the gospel justifies men on sincere obedience ; 
but it is not my design to debate the point of justification with our 
author at this time, and so I let this proposition pass : yet I again 
deny the minor, which our author essays to prove thus. That some 
of the Gentiles do obey in that sense, in which the Jews, who are 
circumcised inwardly or in heart, do obey : this he pretends to 
demonstrate from the apostle's words, Rom. ii. 26, 27. Therefore 
if the uncircumcision keep the righieousnsss of the law, <§'C. and 
shall not imcircumcision, which is by nature, if it fulfil the law. 

But where will our author find the proof of his minor in these 
words ? There is nothing like it, unless he take the antecedent of a 
hypothetic proposition, for a plain assertion. But this antecedent 
needs not be allowed possible, and yet the apostle's words and his 
assertion would hold good, and all that he aims at be reached. Eve- 
ry one knows, that in such propositions, it is only the connexion 
that is asserted. As for the meaning of the text, I have shewed 
before that it is not for our author's purpose. 

5. But our author has another argument, which he thinks is 
clearer than all the rest, and professes himself perfectly stricken 
with the evidence of it, as with a beam of light never to be with- 
stood, or any more to be doubted. Well this mighty argument 
runs thus, If this was the chief advantage the Jew had over the 
" Gentile, that one had the oracles of God, and the other had 
" not, then was there not this difference between them, that one 
" is only in a state of nature, and the other in a state of grace ; 
" or that one was in a capacity, and the other under an impossi- 
" bility of salvation. For this were an advantage of a far greater 
" nature. But this was the advantage, Rom. iii. 2. Chlefiij he- 
** cause to them were commllted the oracles of God;^^^^ ergo : 

I must confess, that I am not stricken with so much evidence 
upon the proposal of this argument, as it seems our author was. — 
To me this argument appears a plain sophism. That the Jews had 
the oracles of God, was a greater advantage, than our author seems 
to think it. And while the apostle calls it the chief advantajje of 
the Jews above the Gentiles, that they had the oracles of Qod? 

* Peace. Disquls. page 63, 64. 

25 



194 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

how will our author infer from this, that they were upon aa equal 
footing as to the means absolutely necessary for salvation ; or which 
is the same, as to a capacity of salvation ; for certainly he that 
wants the means absolutely necessary to salvation is not capable of 
salvation, in that sense, which belongs to our purpose ? For my 
part I would draw the quite contrary conclusion from it ; thus, the 
Jews had this privilege above the Gentiles, that they had the ora- 
cles of God entrusted with them, wherein the only way of salva- 
tion is revealed, being witnessed to by the law and the prophets^ 
E,om. iii. 21. and therefore had access to salvation : whereas on the 
other hand, the Gentiles wanting divine revelation, which alone 
can discover that righteousness, whereby a sinner can be justified, 
did want the means absolutely necessary to salvation, and so were 
not in a capacity of salvation. Now where is our author's boasted 
of demonstration ? The occasion of his mistake is this, he once 
inadvertently supposed, that these two advantages, divine revela- 
tion, and access of salvation, were quite different, and that the one 
-.fas not included in the other. But of this enough. 

?»Ir. Humfrey, I know, may say, they had the law of grace in 
their hearts. But that is the question. Our author asserts this ; 
but lie does so without proof. We have all this while been seek- 
ing proof of this : hitherto we have met with none. We have met 
with som.e scriptures interpreted or wrested into a sense plainly 
inconsistent with their scope and intention, without any regard had 
to the context and drift of the discourse, which is no safe way of 
managing scriptures. 

Next, he insists upon the story of the Ninevites' repentance. — 
They were without the church ; it was a law of grace which led 
them to repent. But had not the Ninevites divine revelation ? Did 
they not repent at the preaching of Jonah ? How will our author 
prove that Jonah never dropped a word, that there was a possibili- 
ty of stopping the progress of the controversy by their turning 
from their evil courses ? Did not Jonah apprehend, that the event 
would be a further forbearance ? But it may be some may say, Jonah 
had no mind they should be spared, and therefore would not drop 
any encouragement : but we know that it was not of choice that 
he went there ; and as he w^ent there in obedience to God, so no 
doubt, he who had been so sharply disciplined for disobedience, would 
speak what the Lord commanded him. Again, had they assur- 
ance of pardon or eternal salvation upon their repentance ? Was it 
gospel repentance ? Or did it reach farther than a forbearance of 
temporal judgments ? 

■ . Well, l3ut the instance of Cornelius seems more pat to his pur- 
pose. He was a Gentile, was accepted of God ; and Peter tells 
us, that in every nation he that fears God and ivorks righteousness, 
is accepted. But who will assure me that Cornelius was a strangei' 



PRINCIPLES OP THE MODEHN DEISTS. 195 

lo the scriptures ? Did he not know them ? Did he not believe 
them ? How could that be ? It is plain he was a proselyte and era- 
braced the Jewish religion, as to its substance, and that he did be- 
lieve, since he pleased God and was accepted. Now we know, that 
without faith it is impossible to please God. What wanted he 
then ? Why, he wanted to be informed that the Messiah promised 
was come^ and that Christ Jesus was he. As to what the apostle 
says of God's acceptance of persons of all nations, any one that 
will give himself the trouble of considering his scope, and the cir- 
cumstances of the place, will see, that it is nothing else but a com- 
ment upon the design of the vision he got to instruct him, that now 
God was to admit persons of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, 
to a participation of the covenant blessings. 

DIGRESSION. 

A short Digression concerning God^s Government of the Heathen 
World, occasioned hi/ the foregoing Objections, wherein an at^ 
tempt is made to account for the Occurrences that have the most 
favorable Aspect to them, without supposing any Intention or 
Design of their Salvation, which is adjected as an Appendix to 
the Answers given lo Mr. Humfrey's Objections, wherein it is 
made evident, that there is no need to suppose the Heathens un- 
der a Law or Government of Grace, 

If I should here stop, the persons with whom I have to do, 
might possibly allege, that the main strength of their cause re- 
mains untouched, and the most straitening difficulty that presses 
ours is not noticed. The short of the matter is, they inquire. What 
government are the Heathen world under? They conceive it must 
be allowed a government of grace, since they are not dealt by ac- 
cording to the demerit of their sins. Possibly we might propose 
some questions that would be no less hard to satisfy, by those who 
talk of an universal law of grace : but this would not remove the 
difficulty, though it might embarrass the opposers of our senti- 
ments. I shall therefore open my mind in this matter, and offer 
what occurs on this head. If I mistake, it will plead somewhat 
for me, that the subject, so far as I know, is not usually spoken of 
by others, and I have not of choice meddled with it, but was led 
to it by my subject, that requires some consideration of it. If 
we state right thoughts in this matter, it will give light to many 
things, that otherwise are dark. What I have to say, I shall pro- 
pose in the subsequent gradation. 

1. Man was originally made under a law that is holy, good, 
righteous, equal and just ; this law required of all subjected to it 
^xact, punctual and perfect obedience ; and for its preservation it 



196 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



was armed with a penal sanction, answerable to the high and tender 
regard, which the infinitely holy, wise and great God had for the 
honor of that law, that was the declaration of his will, bore the 
impress of his authority and representation of all his moral excel- 
lencies. And besides all this, he also proposed a reward, suitable 
to his wisdom and goodness, for which his faithfulness became 
pledged. It is not needful to launch out in proof of the several 
branches of this assertion. That man was made under a law, is 
questioned by none, but Atheists ; and they have their mouths 
suiSciently stopped of old and late by many persons of worth and 
learning. That this law is holy, just and good, cannot without 
notable injury to the Deity be denied. That it exacted perfect 
obedience, is so evident, that no person, who thinks what he says, 
can deny it. A law not requiring perfect obedience, to its own 
precepts, is a law not requiring v/hat it requires, which is plain 
nonsense. A posterior law may not require perfect obedience to a 
prior : but every law requires perfect obedience to itself. That 
this law was armed with a penal sanction is evident from the wis- 
dom of the law-giver, who could not enact such laws, which he 
knew men would transgress, without providing for the honor of his 
own authority. Besides, if there is no penal sanction, it is not to 
be expected that laws could ever reach their end, especially as 
things have always stood with man. But were all those proofs given 
up, the effects of vindictive justice in the world, with the fears 
that sinners are under, lest all these are only the beginning of sor- 
rows, sufficiently confirm this truth, and moreover assure us, that 
it is such a penalty as suits every way the offence in its nature and 
aggravations. But I know none of those things will be questioned 
by those, whom we have mainly under view at present. 

2, All the children of men, in all ages and in all places of the 
world, have been and are guilty of violations of this law. We 
have heard the Deists owning this before ; and Christians will not 
deny it. Deists would have thought it their interest to deny it : but 
since, it is unquestionable that the generality offend, in instances 
past reckoning. If they had aflSrmed, that any one did, in no in- 
stance offend, they might have been required to make good their 
assertion : but this they could not do. They durst not condescend. 
And therefore it must be owned that the best, not in one instance, 
but in many, violate this law. 

3. Upon account of these violations of his holy and righteous 
law, all mankind, every individual, and every generation of men, 
that have lived in the world, are obnoxious to justice. By those 
sins they have forfeited any claim they might have laid to the re- 
ward of perfect obedience, and are liable to the penalty in the sanc- 
tion of the lawr. And God m!<?;lit, at any time, have righteously 
inflicted it, either upon any individual or any whole race of men. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 197 



I determine not now what that punishment was. They who talk 
that our offences are small, and extenuated them, seem scarcely 
impressed with suitable notions of God, and I doubt will not be 
sustained judges competent of the qualities of offences and injuries 
done to his honor. But whatever the punishment is, eternal, or 
not, which I dispute not now, because we agree about it with those, 
whom we now have under consideration, it is certain none can 
prove that it is all confined to time, or that any temporal punish- 
ment is sufficient for the least offence that is committed against 
God. And it is also clear, that, upon one's sinning, the penalty 
might be presently inflicted, without any injustice, provided the 
penal sanction were suitable and just in its constitution, as of ne- 
cessity it must be, where God made the law and constituted the 
punishment. 

4. Although God righteously might have cut off any generation 
of men, and swept the earth clean ; yet has he seen meet to spare 
sinners, even multitudes of them, for a long time. A piece of 
conduct truly astonishing ! Especially it would appear so, if we 
understood how much God hates sin. The only reason why the 
Heathen world hath not admired it more, and been more extensive 
in their inquiries into the reasons of it, is because they had but very 
short and imperfect notions of God's holiness, and the evil of sin. 
They took notice of God's forbearance of some notorious offen- 
ders. Some of them stumbled at it, and some of them en- 
deavored to account for it. But the wonder of God's sparing a 
world full of sinners, was little noticed, and though they had ob- 
served it, they would have quickly found themselves as much at 
a loss here, as any where else. The scriptures have not gratified 
the curiosity of men with such a full account, as our minds would 
have desired, that are too forward to question him particularly 
about his ways, who gives an account of none of his matters : yet 
some reasons of this conduct are dropped that may satisfy the 
humble. 1. God made a covenant with Adam, wherein his pos- 
terity, as well as himself were concerned and included. They were 
to be gainers or losers as he acquitted himself well or ill. This 
transaction, I know, is denied by some Christians. I shall not 
dispute the matter with them : others have done it. I now take 
it for granted. And if they wiW not suppose it, it is but the loss 
of this reason. And let them if they can put a better in its roonu 
Upon supposition, that there was such a transaction, and that it 
was just, as we must allow all to be, whereof God is the author, it 
was not only equal, but in point of wisdom, apparently necessary, 
or at least, highly suitable, that all concerned in this transaction 
should be brought into being, to reap the fruits of it. But this 
was impossible if the world had not been spared. 2. God, in 
sparing the world, had a design of mercy upon some. And ma- 



198 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



ny of them were to proceed from some of the worst of sinners. 
He designed to save some in all ages, and in most places. Their 
progenitors must therefore, of necessity, be kept alive. He bears 
with the provoking carriage of evil men ; because out of their 
loins he intends to extract others, whom he will form for the gloiy 
of his grace. 3. God is patient toward sinners, to manifest the 
equity of his future justice upon them. When men are spared 
and continue in sin, the pleas of infirmity and mistake are cut off, 
and they are convicted of malice. They are silenced, and on- 
lookers satisfied, that severity is justly exercised on them. Qmn- 
tOy Dei magis judicium tardum esty tanto magis justum,^ As 
patience, while it is exercised, is the silence of his justice ; so 
when it is abused, it silences men's complaints against his justice. 
Other reasons of this conduct we might glean from the scriptures : 
but my design allows me not to insist. Nor indeed do they de- 
scend so low as to satisfy curious wits. J#o, these are parts of his 
waijs and aims, hut how little a portion is heard, that is, even by 
revelation known of him ? says Job, chap. xxvi. 14. 

5. The world, or sinners in it, are spared, not by a proper rcr 
prieve, that is, a delay of punishment, after the offenders are ta- 
ken up, questioned, tried, convicted, and solemnly condemned ; 
the way, manner and time of their punishment fixed, by a judicial 
application of the general threatening of the law in this particular 
case, by the judge competent, and the sentence plainly intimated ; 
a delay of the execution after this, if it is of the judge's proper 
motion, if the offender is not imprisoned, if he is employed, and if 
favors are conferred upon him, and obedience required of him, 
gives hopes of impunity and escape ; and if the persons commit 
iTot new offences, without, at least, an appearance of insincerity, 
they are very seldom condemned upon the first sentence : but 
sinners are spared by a forbearance, or wise and just connivance. 
If the word would not offend. The Governor of the world knows 
and sees the carriage of sinners, is aware of their sins, and keeps 
silence for a time ; but yet keeps an eye upon them, calls them 
not into question, puts off the trial, takes them not up, as it were, 
and winks at them. Now all this may be justly done for a time ; 
the sinners may be employed, and acts of bounty, for holy and 
wise ends, may be conferred on them, and exercised towards them, 
and that without the least injustice, without any design of par- 
doning ; as the sequel of this discourse will more fully clear. 

6. This forbearance of God is wise, just and holy : for 1. He 
is the only competent judge, as to the time of punishing offenders. 
It cannot be made appear, that he may not thus delay, even where 
he has no thought of pardoning. 2. It implies no approbation of 



* " The slower that the judg-raent of God is, it is the more just.'' 



1» 

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, m 

the faults formerly committed or those they may commit, during 
this interval of time, since he has sufficiently testified against them 
by the laws he has made, which forbid them by the penalty an- 
nexed to those laws, and by examples of his severity upon others, 
which have not been wanting in any generation. These may suffi- 
ciently acquit him, however for a time he keeps silent, and con<:eals, 
as it were, his knowledge of the offences of some, or his resent- 
ments against them, on account of them. 3. He accomplishes 
purposes worthy of him ; which are sufficient to justify him in 
this couduct, while he keeps silence, and carries to them as if there 
were no offence, or he knew none, and they go on in their rebel- 
lion, or secret practices against his law and goyernment. Impu- 
dent offenders have no place left, either for denial or excuse of their 
crimes, or complaints against the severity of his resentments. 
Spectators are made to see that it is not infirmity or mistake, but 
fixed alienation or enmity that is so sharply punished. He serves 
himself of them, and makes them, though they mean not so, carry 
on the designs of his glory, either in helping or trying, or bringing 
into being persons, •whom he has designs of mercy upon. And 
sure he may justly do this, since not only he has the best title to 
their obedience ; but he has all the reason and right in the world 
to use that life, while he spares it, for what purposes he pleases, 
which they have forfeited to justice. Who can blarne him, if 
sometimes he spares secret plotters, and lets them go on till their 
plots are sufficiently ripened for their conviction, and others' satis- 
faction. Nor is there any ground to quarrel, if he deal even with 
the worst, as equal judges do with the mother, guilty of some 
manifest crime ; they not only spare and delay the execution, till 
the child whom they design mercy to, is brought forth ; but do not 
take notice of her, or intimate even a purpose of punishment, till 
afterwards, lest the child should suffer by the mother's despair and 
grief. 4. This is yet more remarkably just in God, who can on 
the one hand secure the criminal, so that justice shall not suffer by 
the delay, and on the other, that the criminal shall not run out in- 
to those impieties, that would cross the ends, endanger the safety, 
or wrong the reputation of his government, with those who are ca- 
pable of making an equal estimate of things. 

7. It was every way suitable and necessary that the persons thus 
spared, should be continued under a moral government. They 
were not to be ruled by mere force : 1, Because they are, while un- 
der such a forbearance, capable of some sort of a moral govern- 
ment. When a prince deals with persons, whom he knows to be 
on treasonable plots against this government, and conceals his re- 
sentment, he still manages them as subjects, and continues them 
under a government ; nor is he faulty in doing so. 2. They are 
not, while under such a forbearance, capable of any otht?r goveriir 



200 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

ment ; for if once the Ruler of the world begin to deal in a way 
of force and justice with them, then this forbearance is at an end. 
3. It were a manifest reproach to the Governor of the world, if 
they were supposed under no government at all. Besides, on this 
supposition, the ends of his forbearance could not be reached. 
And moreover, the moral dependence of creatures on their Crea- 
tor, which can only be maintained either in this way, or by putting 
them under the penal sanction of the law, would be dissolved, 
which cannot be admitted. 

8. Sinners under this dispensation are still under the law of cre- 
ation : it is true this law can no longer be the means of conveying 
a title to the great and principal reward ; but that is their own 
fault, and not the governor's, nor the laws'. But notwithstanding of 
this, they are still under it, and it continues the instrument of God'sf 
government over them. For 1. The ground of obedience still 
continues, although some of the motives, yea, the principal en- 
couragement, I mean, eternal rewards, are forfeited. The obliga- 
tion to obedience can never otherwise be dissolved, than by the in- 
flicting of a capital punishment, which puts ouf of all possibility of 
yielding any obedience. Some, I know make the power and right 
of obliging, to consist merely in a power of rewarding and punish- 
ing : but this is easily convicted of falsehood : and although the 
learned Mr. Gastrel has advanced this, in his sermons at Boyle's 
Lecture, yet we have no reason to receive it, as Beconsal in his 
treatise of the Law of Nature^ and others have sufficiently cleared. 
2. This law is sufficient to answer the designs of this forbearance, 
and God's rule over them who live under it and by it. It has not 
lost its directive power ; but it is able sufficiently to instruct, at 
least in these duties, either as to God, ourselves or others, that are 
of absolute necessity to keep some order and decorum in the world, 
carry on regularity, the propagation of mankind, and the like. It 
is manifestly sufficient to be a test to try men's willingness to obey, 
and convince men of wilfulness in their rebellion ; and to be a stand- 
ing monument of God's holiness ; yea, it continues to have that 
force upon the consciences of the generality, as to be a check to 
keep them from running into enormities subversive of all order 
and society, and destructive to the other ends of God's patience. 
2. Experience fully clears, that men still pay regard to this law, 
and this is the only law that men destitute of a revelation own. 

9. While God saw meet to continue this forbearance, it was not 
necessary nor suitable, that he should plainly, particularly and so- 
lemnly intimate all the length he designed to carry his resentmentf> 
against offenders. 1. There was no necessity of this towards the 
clearing of God's holiness ; this being sufficiently done by the pro- 
mulgation of the law, its penalty, and many particular examples. 
2. This would have undone the dispensation whereof we have 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 201 

been speaking. 3. This is utterly inconsistent with all the designs 
of it. Men had been driven into despair, and so all moral go- 
vernment had been dissolv^ed. 

10. Yea, it was consistent w^ith his holiness, and suitable to hia 
wisdom, to permit men to fall into sin, very great sins, and for a 
time to go on in them. God can neither do any thing that is un- 
worthy, nor omit any thing that is worthy of him, of a moral kind. 
And it is certain in fact, that such sins and enormities he has per- 
mitted : and therefore, however strange it appears to us, that a 
holy God, who could have restrained, should permit those things ; 
yet since he, who can do no evil, has done it, we must conclude 
this altogether consistent with his holiness. And it is manifestly 
so with his wisdom, since no injury is done to his holiness. For 1. 
By this means sinners give full proof, what a height their enmity 
against God is come to. 2. They are the fitter to exercise his 
own people. And 3. They are riper for the strokes he designs 
to inflict on them. 

Notwithstanding of all this, it was meet and necessary that some 
offenders should be remarkably punished, and some bounds set to 
offences ; and more especially those offences which cross the de- 
signs of God's forbearance, and tend to dissolve the government 
and order, which It was necessary God should maintain in the 
world. And hence it has come to pass, that not the greatest sins^ 
such as these certainly are, which immediately strike against God, 
but these which strike against order and government, have been 
most remarkably punished in all ages, as might be made appear by 
innumerable instances of the remarkable punishment of murders, 
treasons, and undutlfulness to parents. This is congruous to jus- 
tice, not only on the abovementioned account, but on this, that 
the notices concerning these last sort of evils are much more clear 
in most instances, than those which respects the former. 

12. It is every way suitable to the wisdom, sincerity and holi- 
ness of God ; yea, and of absolute necessity to the design of this his 
forbearance, that he exercise bounty in lesser things ; such as the 
good things of this life are : and that he vouchsafe those mental 
endowments to some of the spared sinners, which are necessary 
toward the maintenance of that government, which God was to 
keep up among them ; such are civil wisdom, invention, courage, 
&c. These he may give without the least intimation of any de- 
sign of special mercy. For what relation have these things to 
special mercy, w hich are heaped in abundance on the worst of men. 
However, that it was fit these things should be bestowed upon 
some in this case, is evident ; because, 1. Eternal rewards are now 
forfeited, and there would have been nothing to induce to obedi- 
. ence if this had not been done. 2. Hereby he gives a witness to his 
own goodness, which an:gravates offences committed against hijQ. 

26 



202 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



3. Hereby he draws on men to obedience, or rather to do those 
pieces of serv ice, which are in their own nature, such as he allows 
and requires, although they design not his service, but their own 
pleasure and piofit. 4. Hereby he clears scores with sinners, 
V, hile he suffers not what is even but pretended service, to pass 
without a reward, which is sufficient to shew what a kind rewarder 
he would have been, if thej had indeed obeyed. 5. Hereby he 
cuts oflf all excuse for their continuance in disobedience. 6. This 
conduct gives them an innocent occasion of discovering latent 
wickedness, which otherw ise they would have had no access to 
shew, and keeps from that utter despair which would have marred 
the design of God's forbearance. 

13. These vouchsafements of divine bounty lead to a sort of 
repentance ; not that to which the promise of pardon is joined in 
the gospel. For 1. They give eminent discoveries of the good- 
ness of that -God whom we have offended, and consequently of the 
foUy of offending him, which naturally leads to sorrow or regret. 

2. They strengthen, as all benefits do, the original obligation to 
obedience. 3. They let us see, that obedience is not altogether 
fruitless, since they may expect less severe resentments if they 
return ; yea, m.ay expect some share in this bounty, and are not 
under an impossibility of mercy, for any thing they can know. 

14. After all, I do yet see no reason to think, that they who 
are merely under such a dispensation as this, which I take to be 
the case of the Heathen world, are under a law of grace ; which 
assures, that upon a return to former obedience, sins shall be en- 
tirely pardoned, and they have access to eternal rewards. I grant it 
higWy probable, that if God had net intended grace to some, such 
a dispensation had never been granted. I admit, that this dispensa- 
tion is subservient to a design of grace upon some. I further al- 
low, that there is no absolute impossibility of the salvation of per- 
sons, however deeply guilty, who are not yet under the penalty : 
but if they are saved, it must be by some means or way revealed 
by God, and superadded to all the former, which I can never see 
to amount to any law of grace, since it is manifest, 1 . That all 
this may be exercised toward them whom God in the end designs 
everlastingly to punish. He exercises much long'Suffering to the 
vessels of n raih fitted to destruction. 2. There is nothing in the 
whole dispensation, that in the least intimates any purpose of God 
to pass by former offerees, either absolutely or upon condition, 

3. In fact it has never been found, that ever this dispensation has 
led any one to that sincere repentance, which must be allowed ne- 
cessary, in order to pardon. And, I dare not say, that God ever 
did appoint means for such an end, which after so long a trial should 
never answer it. 4. All whom God has pardoned, or of whom we 
may say, that he has brought them to repentance, have been 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 203 



brought by other means. So that upon the whole, I see no ground 
for asserting an universal law of grace. 

As what has been above said, takes off the principal pretence 
for such an universal law of grace, which some seem so fond of ; so 
if any such is asserted, it must be owned to be a law of a very 
universal tenor, as being that wherein all mankind are concerned. 
It must be allowed a law designed to take off the force of the ori- 
ginal law, concreated with our nature, that necessarily results from 
the nature of God and man, and their natural relation, at least as 
to one instance, I mean the penal sanction, in case of sin. It must 
be allowed to be a law not merely directive as to duty, but design- 
ed to tender undeserved favors to sinful man. Now he that can 
think a few, (or call them many) dubious actions, that is, actions 
capable of another, yea, contrary construction, a sufficient promul- 
gation of such a law, as is of so universal extent, as derogates, at 
least in one instance, of so great moment, from a law so firmly and 
solemnly established, without any known provision for its honor, 
injured by so many sins ; and finally that tenders such great favors 
to the transgressors of it, may believe what he pleases. I must 
own, this one consideration is with me enough to sink that notion. 

But to conclude this whole matter, upon which we have dwelt 
so long. Upon the nicest survey of occurrences in the Heathen 
world, I can see nothing that savours of any acquaintance with 
that forgiveness that is with God ; unless it is that generally en- 
tertained notion of the placability of their deities. This notion, 
I make no doubt, had its rise from revelatioUy and was continued 
by tradition. And several things did concur to the preservation 
of this, while other notices that had the same rise were lost ; the 
apparent necessity of it to man in his present sinful condition ; the 
suitableness of it to lay a foundation for that worship, to which 
the remaining natural notices of a Deity urged them, and which 
was of indispensible necessity toward the support of human go- 
vernment ; the darkness and blindness of men as to the exceeding 
sinfulness of sin ; the holiness of God's nature, and the strong in- 
clination all men have to be favourable, even to their faults, did 
contribute not a little toward its support. Finally, this placability 
did not so much respect the one true God, of whom they had very 
little knowledge, as their own fictitious deities, which they put in 
the room of the true God. And it is obvious, that when men 
took upon them to set up gods, they would be sure to frame such 
as might agree with their own apprehensions, and pass by theii' 
faults with as little difficulty as they committed them. Whatever 
there is as to this, we have no reason to think that this is a natural 
notice, it being neither self-evident, nor certainly deducible froni 
principles that are such. 



304 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



CHAP. XL 

Proving the Insufficiency of Natural Religion to eradicate our 
Inclinations to Sin, or to subdue its Power. 

I THINK we have said enough to demonstrate the insufficimcy of 
natural religion, to satisfy us as- to the way how we raaj obtain 
the removal of guilt or the pardon of sin. Let us now see whe- 
ther it is able to remove the corruption of nature, and subdue or 
eradicate our inclinations to sin. 

Before we enter directly on this, it will not be impertinent, if it 
is not plainly necessary, that we say somewhat concerning the na- 
ture of this corruption. We shall therefore offer the few follow- 
ing hints concerning it. 

It is most certain, that man has corrupt inclinations. I think 
this will scarce be denied ; since it is beyond contradiction evi- 
dent, that the bulk of mankind in all ages, have run headlong into 
those courses which reason condemns as contrary to the law, under 
which we are made. The law condemns, reason justifies the law, 
and proclaims these courses unworthy of us ; conscience checks 
and sometimes torments, and yet sinners run on. Can all this be 
"without corrupt inclinations swaying, yea, as it were, forcibly 
driving that way ? Not surely, 

2. It is certain, that not only there are such inclinations in man, 
but that they are exceedingly strong and forcible. Our own reason 
condemns those actions, and cries shame on the sinner's conscience, 
presages the resentments of the righteous God, the evil effects of 
them are visible, and they are felt to be destructive to our health, 
ruinous to our reputation and estates, inconsistent v/ith our inward 
pesce ; yea, in a few instances, human law provides terrible pun- 
ishments : and yet, in spite of all these strong barriers, we are 
carried down with the stream : nor can the most rational eonsider- 
atione, from interest, honor or prudence, stop our career. Cer- 
tainly the force of inclinaticn, that carries over all these, must be 
great. 

3. It seems plainly natural and congenial to us. I shall not 
nicely inquire in what sense it is so. I am far from thinking, that 
our natures as at first made, were created with it. I have said 
enough before to prove this impossible : but I mean, that as our 
natures now are, however they came to be so, it is an inseparable 
appendage of them, cleaves to them, and proceeds not merely 
from custom, and is not acquired, though it is often improved by 
custom. Now this seems evident from many things, L The uni- 
versality of it. All men, in all ages, in all places, and in all cir- 
cumstances, have such vicious inclinations. I do not sa^ that eve- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. il05 



ly individual is proud, ambitious, covetous, revengeful, passionate 
and lustful. No, but every one has some one or other of these, 
or the like breaking out : which says the spring is within, and is 
strong ; though the constitution of our bodies, the climates we live 
under, our education and circumstances of hfe, have dammed in 
some of them, and cut out channels for others of them. Now it 
is plainly unaccountable how all men should be thus corrupt, if not 
naturally so. No parallel instance, in any sort, can be given, 
where any thing not natural and congenial, at least as to its prin- 
ciple and inclination, has obtained such an universal sway. 2. It 
waits not till we are grown and framed by education, custom, en- 
gagement and inventions ; but makes strong, discernible, and sen- 
sible eruptions in infancy and childhood. As soon as we are ca- 
pable, and very oft, while one would think us scarcely so, by rea- 
son of age, we are proud, revengeful, covetous, &c. which says 
this is congenial. 3. It is often seen, that these corruptions break 
out in our younger years, which neither education, example, circum- 
stances, nor any thing else but a corrupted nature, can give any en- 
couragement to. 4. Yea more, how strong are these inclinations, 
and that very early, which are discouraged, opposed, borne down, 
and have all outward occasions cut off from them. One is pas- 
sionate among calm people, though he is punished for it and sees it 
not. Another is ambitious and proud among sober people, in mean 
circumstances, where there is no example to excite ambition, no 
theatre to act it upon, and the beginnings are curbed by precept, 
instruction, reproof, chastisements and example. 5. Those things 
are evidently interwoven with, and strengthened by the very con- 
stitutions of our bodies, and climates under which we live. Hence 
there are domestic and national vices, which cleave to some fami- 
lies and nations. 6. The best, the most sober, and freest from dis- 
cernible eruptions of corruption, still own they find their incli- 
nations strong, and driving them into indiscernible acts corres- 
'pondent to them. 7. They who deny the force and being of 
these inclinations, and who pretend that the will of man is able to 
master all these, yet cannot but own, that there are such inclina- 
tions ; and as for the pretended ability of the will to conquer 
them, they give the least proof of it who pretend most to it : for 
if the will is thus able, and if, as they pretend, they have sufficient 
moral arguments which persuade to it, why is it not done ? ^Yhat 
stops it ? 8. If shall only further offer the testimonies of some few 
among the Heathens. Timmis the LocriaUf who lived before Plato, 
tells us in his discourses, " That vitiosity comes from our parents 
" and first principles, rather than from negligence and disorder of 
public manners ; because we never part from those actions which 
lead us to imitate the primitive sins of our parents."* Plato tells us, 

* Gale's Court cf the Gentiles, Part 4. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Tar 2. 



20(3 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



that, " In times past the divine nature flourished in men ; but at 
" length it mixed with mortal, and uvSprnTrivoy j)'^®-, human corrup- 
*• tions prevailed to the ruin of mankind : and from this source there 
" followed an inundation of evils on men. Hence he calls corruption 
9oc^ ra-y Kccja (pvc-iv^ the natural disease, or disease of nature, be- 
cause the nature of mankind is greatly degenerated and deprav- 
" ed, and all manner of disorders infest human nature : and men 
« being impotent, are torn in pieces by their own lusts, as by so 
many wild horses. Hence Democritus is said to affirm the dis- 
eases of the soul to be so great, that if it were opened, it would 
« appear to be a sepulchre of all manner of evils." Aristotle tells 
BS, That there is in us somewhat naturally repugnant to right 
^ reason, ve^vK(^ ccvltfie^rof ra Xaya*"^ Seneca, Epist. 50, gives 
us a very remarkable account of his thoughts in this matter. The 
whole were worthy to be transcribed, but it is too long. I shall 
translate a part of it. " Why do we deceive ourselves ? Our 
*• evil is not from without ; it is fixed in our very bowels. Alihi\ 
^ All sins are in all men, but all do not appear in each man : he 
^ that hath one sin — hath all. We say, that all men are intem- 
" perate, avaricious, luxurious, malignant ; not that these sins ap- 
pear in all ; but because they may be, yea, are in all, although 
latent. A man may be guilty, though he do no hurt. Sins are 
perfect before they break forth into effect." It is worthy of 
our observation, what ^Ir. Gale tells us, after he has quoted these 
words, viz. that Jansenius breaks forth into a rapture upon hearing 
these philosophers philosophize more truly about the corruption of 
man's natiu-e, than Pelagians and others of late. 

But the Oracles of Reason tell us, that it is denied " that the 
^ lapse of nature is universal, because some through the course of 
their lives, have proved more inclinable or prone to virtue than 
" lo vice." I have spoken to this before, but I add, 1 . This is 
not enough, that they are more prone to virtue than to vice : for 
ihe question is. Whether they have inclinations to vice ? and not,. 
"Whether they contrary are stronger ? 2. This cannot be pretend- 
ed to be the case with many. Now, since the question is about a 
religion sufficient for all mankind, if any of them have such a dis- 
temper, and natural religion provide no cure, it is insufficient. 3. 
It is not. Whether there are men that have been prone to some 
Tirtues, and averse from some vices, possibly scandalous sins ? 
But, Whether there have been men inclined to no sin, prone to 
all virtue ? If they assert such a one, shew us the man. We can- 
not believe any such, since all we know are otherwise, till we see 
him produced. 4. It is not the business whether men have done 
virtuous acts ordinarily, that is, the material acts of virtue : for 



* Ari5t. Ethick, Lib. 1. Cap. 13. f « Elsewhere." 



IPP PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 207 

corruption may run freely out in this channel. A man may be 
ambitious, proud, and live among persons, with whom vice is de- 
cried, open vice I mean, and therefore affect a great exactness as 
to morality. This is good : but this is all but a sacrifice to ambi- 
tion. One lust is the principal idol, all the rest arc sacrificed to it. 
Corruption turns not troublesome, and is pleased, if it get vent 
any way. A strong spring, if it can get a vent under ground, 
may press for a vent above ; yet it will easily be restrained there. 

Now this being the case plainly with man, it is impossible for 
him to reach happiness, while this corruption remains ; nor can he 
be sure of acceptance with God. While things are thus, nature 
is imperfect, man is out of order, reason, the nobler part, is kept 
under, and passions, the brutal part, bear the sway. This is more 
unseemly, than to see servants on horses, while princes walk o>i. 
foot. There is continual occasion for remorse, checks, challenges 
of conscience, and fears of the resentment of a holy God. There 
can be no firm confidence of access to God, or near fellowship 
with him, while we entertain his enemies in our bosom ; nay, have 
them interwoven, as it were, with our natures. 

The Deists I know make a horrible outcry against Christians, 
for asserting this corruption of nature. Herbert in his book de 
Veritate, has many bitter invectives against the asrjerters of it ; 
and yet, overcome with the evidence of truth, he is o]>liged fre- 
quently to acknowledge it plainly : yea, not only does he acknow- 
ledge it, but he pleads this directly, in excuse of the most abomi- 
nable wickedness. After he has told us, that the temperament or 
constitution of our bodies have a poweifal influence to sway ii^ to 
some sins, he subjoins : Qifo pado hmid ita levi negotio damnan- 
" dos existimo, qui ex thoc-vyKfccncc aliqiia prcBvaricanfur. Qiieni 
" admodum igitur flagitii hand juste argueris lethargum, desi- 
" dem, aut hydropicum, hibacem ; ita fortasse neque veneris, aut 
" Martis (Bstro percituni modo in peccantium humonm rednn- 
" dantiam, potius quam pravum aliquem kabitmn, delictum com- 
" modo rejici possit. Neque tamen me hie conscelerati cnjusvis 
" patronum sisto ; sed in id solummodo conlendo, ut mitiori sen- 
" tentia de its statuamus, qui corporea, Imdali, Sc tanium nan ne- 
" cessaria propensione in peccala prolabuntur.^^<^ Well, here is a 

* " Therefore I think that those are laot so easily to be condemned who 
L " sin from any peculiarity of bodily constitution. As, therefore, one could 
f; " not justly blame a lethargic person for being lazy, or a dropsical person for 
** being desirous of drink ; so, perhaps, we ought not to blame any one that 
'* is prompted to sin by the sting of lust or anger, provided that his sin may 
" be conveniently charged to the redundancy of peccant humours, rather 
*' than to any perverse habit. And here I do not set myself up as the advo- 
** cate of every wicked man, but only contend for this, that we should judge 
*' more mildly of those who fall into sins, from a corporeal, brutal, and al- 
" most necessary inclination." 



208 



AN INariRY INTO THE 



handsome excuse for vice. We must be as far from condemning 
him, who, prompted by passion, slajs and murders, or hurried on 
by lust, commits rapes and adulteries ; as of censuring him who is 
sick of a lethargj, for his laziness and indisposition to act ; or one 
that is hydropic, for his immoderate thirst. This divinity will 
highly please profane men. The salvo he subjoins is very frivo- 
lous, ard deserves rather contempt than an answer. But to leave 
this, it is plain there are such inclinations, and that if they are 
not rooted out we are undone. What though men might have 
hopes, if they but erred once, that they might easily obtain re- 
mission ; yet sure it must confound them, when they still sin on, 
and that out of inclination. \Unless therefore natural religion is 
able to cure this disease, and Eradicate those inclinations, it serves 
to no valuable purpose, at least it is insufficient as to the great 
ends of religion, our own happiness or acceptance with God/ And 
that really it cannot do so, will be clear by the following consider- 
ations. 

1. If this corruption Is congenial with our nature, as the above^ 
mentioned arguments go near to demonstrate, and the Christian 
religion fully proves, it is evident, that there must be some change 
wrought upon our natures. Now this is more than natural religion 
can pretend to, which knows nothing of regeneration, and the 
sanctifying work of the spirit of grace. I know Plato and some 
others have talked of inspiratwn, and some aids of God: but this 
was all but chat, amusement, and a few tinkling words, which 
might please the ears ; but what evidence could they give, that any 
such thing was attained, or attainable ! 

2. Though this were given up ; yet of whatever nature this 
corruption and impotency is, call it natural or moral, it is certain, 
that it is strong ; natural religion cannot give sufficient security that 
it is practicable to eradicate it. We know that some streams of 
this corruption may be dammed in, some of the top branches lop- 
ped off, and some of the fruits of it may be plucked. This, in 
so far as it is done, is good for mankind, and useful in society. 
Some of the philosophers have gone a great way in it, and there- 
by have shamed most who are called Christians. But what is all 
this to the eradicating of corruption, purifying the minds of men, 
and universal conformity in heart to the rule of duty ? The at- 
tainments of philosphers need not here be talked of : their virtues 
were but shows, and the shadows of them. Search to the bot- 
tom, and you will find, that what they called self-denial, was only 
a piece of delicate interest in order to reach self-ends : it was but 
a parting of one thing pleasant to ourselves, to gain a greater, which 
is selfishness in the extreme. As for that self-denial, which Chris- 
tianity teaches, it was not heard of, or known in the least. Liber- 
ality was but a mere parade of pride, which values no gifts, provided 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 209 



I it have the glory of being liberal ; modestly was the art of conceal- 
ing our vanity ; civility, but an affected preference of other men 
before ourselves, to conceal how much we value ourselves, above all 
the world ; bashfulness, but an affected silence in those things, which 
lusts make men think of with pleasure ; benevolence or the desire 
of obliging other men, but a secret desire of serving ourselves, by 
getting them to befriend us at other times ; gratitude, but an impa- 
tience to acquit ourselves of an obligation, with a shamefacedness 
for having been too long beholden to others, for some favor receiv- 
ed. So that all these pretended virtues, in general, have only been 
so many guards made use of by self-love, to prevent our darling and 
secret vices from appearing outwardly. All these are no evidences, 
what may be done towards the removal of corrupt inclinations. 
Nor indeed can nature *s light satisfy us that it is practicable. Can 
it shew us the man that has done it ? This were somewhat to 
the purpose, could he be named. But this cannot be. Will it 
tell us that we have a power to do it ? But this is somewhat 
that we see and find by experience, the strongest and most con- 
vincing of all arguments, not to be true. We find we may re- 
strain or forbear some outward actions, but we have no experience 
of a power to lay aside or divest ourselves of inclinations so deep- 
ly rooted. Besides, they, who talk of this power, whereof others 
have no experience, are liable to be questioned upon several things 
which they cannot fairly or satisfyingly answer. Why do not 
they more than others who find it not, but complain of the want of 
this power, shew that those inclinations are eradicated which they 
own should be laid aside, which they assert they have a power to 
lay aside, and which they say they have been long trying to over- 
come ? The world will be forward to judge, at least, the thinking 
part of mankind will be so, that they are rather misled by some 
fond speculations to judge they have a power that they really 
want, than that this practical proof should fail, which seems scarce 
capable of an answer. 

Now will men be effectually engaged in a work so difficult, 
which they are never like to bring to an issue ? W ill they not 
rather choose to yield to the conqueror than engage in a war that 
must last while they last, and that without prospect of conquest 
and being masters in the end ? Yea, have they not done so f 
Who will be induced to such an undertaking without encourage- 
ment ? 

3. If this is practicable, yet it must be owned extremely diffi- 
cult, and what men will not easily be engaged in. Inclinations are 
deeply rooted, strengthened by custom, and in most heightened 
by temptations, whereof the world is full. Now if natural religion 
is supposed able to persuade to such an undertaking, it must be 

27 



210 



AN INQmRY INTO THE 



well furnished with strong motives and inducements. Whence 
shall those be fetched ? From the rewards of virtue, and the 
punitihajeiit of vice on the other side of time ? We heard how short 
the accounts of nature's hght of these are. The impressions of 
these were ahvays more deeply rooted in the vulgar, than in the phi- 
losophers ; yet they had no such effect. It is plain, outward en- 
couragements do not attend the practice of virtue. There re- 
mains only then the beauty of virtue itself. Of this the philoso- 
phers have talked wonderful things. But the mischief of it is, it 
was but talk. When they missed other things, they could, even 
with their dy'ing^ breath, as Brutus, one of the adeptii^ is said to 
have done, caR virtue but an empty name. They lived otherwise 
than they talked, the best of them not excepted. It is excellent- 
\y said by the ingenious Claudian, 

Ipsa quidem virtus pretium sibi solaque late 
Eortunee secura nitet, nec fascibus ullis 
Erig-itur, plausuve petit clarescere vulgi. 
Nil opis externi cupiens, nil indig-nse laudis, 
Divitiis animosa suis, immotaque cunctis 
Cusibus, ex alta mortalla despicit arce.* 

Tlik is indeed very prettily said ; but this is all. Men may 
please themselves with refined speculations of the excellency of 
virtue : but it 13 not this alone that can sway corrupt man. It is 
not the question what virtue really is ? But what men think of it, 
and can be made to see in it ? And it is certain, all the philoso- 
])her3 could never persuade the world of it ; and no wonder, for 
they couid not persuade themselves. Mankind have had other 
thoughts, and it must be other views than nature can give, that 
will beat them out of this. Another poet plainly opens the case : 

Turpe quidem dictu (sed si modo vera fatemur) 

Vulgus amicitias atilitate probat : 

Cura quid expediat prior est, qaam quid sit liouestum, 

Etcum foi'Luna statque caditque fides. 

Xec facile invenies multis in millibus unum, 

Virtutt^m pretium qui putat esse suum. 

Ipse decor recti, facti si prsemia desint, 

J^on movet, & g-ratis prenitet esse probum.f 



* " Perfecl." • 

t De Consulatu Mallii Theodoriabi Initio. — " Virtue indeed is its own re- 
" wai'd, and it alone shines far and wide, reg-ardless of fortune ; nor is it ele- 
vated by any power, or desires to become famous by the applause of the 
croud, having no desire of outward help, nor any need of praise. Bold in 
its own riches, and immoveable by all accidents, it looks down on mortal 
*' thinpfs from ahig-h eminence." 

* Ovid, de Ponto, Lib. 2. Eleg. 3. — " It is indeed scandalous to relate, but 
" if we will only confess the truth, the multitude approves of friendship only 
" for interest ; the case of what is profitable is prior to the case of what is 
" lioncrablcj and their fidelity stands or falls with fortune ; nor will you easv 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, 211 



Here is the true state of the case. But to come closely up to 
the point ; this beauty of virtue is not discernible till we have 
made some progress in it. While corrupt inclinations are in their 
vigor in the heart, such a beauty is not easily seen. 2. It is a . 
beauty too fine to be perceived by vulgar eyes, or indeed by any, 
without deeper and nicer consideration, than most of men can go 
to the chai-ge of. 3. Alone it is not sufficient to support and car- 
ry on in so hazardous an undertaking. This advantage is not to 
be felt till the virtue be obtained. It is a question whether it will 
be obtained. So that it is plain, natural religion wants motives to 
engage effectually to this. 

4. It is still further considerable to this purpose, that these vi- 
cious inclinations are strong, if not strongest, in those who have 
neither capacity to dive into those few refined considerations, 
which enforce the practice of virtue, and the subduing of corrup- 
tion, nor indeed to understand them when proposed, nor have they 
time or leisure to attend to the discourses of the philosophers 
where they are taught, or money to purchase them. And natural 
religion provides no teachers, at least if we take it according to 
the accounts that we get from the Deists, who bear such a terrible 
grudge to a standing mmistry, and have so oft in their mouths 
that reflection of Dryden, " Priests of all religions are the same." 
Now what a sad case are poor men in, who are solicited by out- 
ward temptations and pushed on by strong inclinations, and have 
so small assistance given them by natural religion. 

5. As motives are wanting, so the work is not easily carried on, 
the way of management is difficult, and the directions given us by 
the philosophers or others, are exceedingly unsatisfactory. Some 
of them are impossible, such as the entire laying aside our affec- 
tions ; others of them ridiculous, such as that direction above- 
mentioned out of PlatOjyfor the purification of our souls by music 
and mathematics, &c. Others, and indeed most of them, only tell 
US what we are to do, bid us do the thing, but tell us not how to 
set about it ; some of them only tell us how to conceal inward cor- 
ruption, or divert it. And, perhaps, I should not say amiss, if I 
should say, that what the best moral philosophers either aimed at 
or attained, was only to dam in corruption on one side, to let it 
run out at another ; or to make that run in a secret channel, which 
run open before. It were long to examine their several directions. 
The learned Herbert gives us a summary of them, which I shall 
here present the reader with. 1 . We should suppress all our vi- 
tious affections. This is but to advise the thing, without telling 
us how it is to be done, 2. That rue expiate our sins by deep re-- 

" ly find one among many thousands, who thinks that virtue is its own reward. 
** The beauty of virtue by itself does not move them, if rewards are wanting, 
" and tliey griidg-e to be honest for nothing." 



212 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



pentancef and % the instituted sacrifices or rites. This is only a 
remedy for guilt, and an ill one too, as has been cleared above. 
3. That-we avoid the society of evil men. But then we must go 
fiut of the world, or at least out of the heathen world. 4. That 
we use tlie company of good men. But where shall we find Ihem 
amongst those, who have no more but natural religion ? 5. That 
we inquire carefulhj what is to be done, and what is not to be 
done ; but the question is, when we know it. How shall we get 
the one avoided and the other followed, considering we have a 
strong aversion to good, and incHnation to evil ? 6. That our 
sins, which arise from human frailty, should be corrected or laid 
aside. But still the question occurs, How is this to be done ? 
7. That we should use supplications 'and prayers to the gods, as 
the priests prescribe. But for what, and upon what grounds ? 
And what will this help the matter ? 

6. To conclude this argument, the universal experience of man- 
kind bears testimony to the weakness of natural religion. Nothing 
in this matter was ever done, or done to purpose, save where reve- 
lation prevailed. Should we narrowly scan the lives, not of the 
vulgar, but of the Heathen philosophers, as Plato, Aristotle, Sene- 
ca, Plutarch, Cato and Brutus, we might easily pull off the mask, 
and discover how little it was that they attained in this matter, or 
r^ither nothing at all. Yea, even a Socrates himself would not be 
able to stand before an impartial inquirer. I believe he could not 
give a good account of his amours, and those practical instructions, 
which he is said to have given his scholar Alcibiades. He repress- 
ed well the vanity and pride of other philosophers : but perhaps, 
nay I need not say perhaps, with greater pride ; yea even his 
death, the most applauded part of his whole conduct, might be un- 
masked, and deprived of the unjust eulogies, which some have 
made on it, who, it may be, never read the accounts we have of 
it, or seriously considered his carriage on that occasion. It is true, 
he was unjustly put to death, and behaved very resolutely, but 
whether he fell not a sacrifice to his own pride, as much as to the 
malice of his enemies, may be questioned. This I say not to de- 
tract from those great men, whom I admire, considering their state ; 
but to shew, that they went not so high as some would have us 
believe. 

In fine, till revealed religion appeared, nothing was seen in the 
vrorkl, of true piety or religion, of mortification of sin, or holiness 
cf life. The natural notices could never make one pious, or in- 
deed moral. Whereas Christianity, upon its first appearance, in a 
moment, as it werc^ made millions so. And they who have re- 
jected it, and set up for Heathenism again, under the new, but 
injurious name of Deism, are no friends to holiness of life, piety 
towards Go*"], sobriety in their ow^i way, nor righteou^neiss among 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 213 



men. What mighty saints do Blount, Hobbe??, Spinoza, Uriel, 
Accosta and others make ? 

I designed to have proceeded further, to demonstrate the insuf- 
ficiency of -jna^ural religion to answer the ends of religion j by the 
consideration of its insufficiency to support under the troubles of 
life, or amongst the terrors of death ; but upon second thoughts I 
judged, after what has been said, it was not needful. Besides, if 
any look but at it, they may easily see it utterly insufficient to 
this purpose, as it is indeed to the other great ends of religion. 

If the well-founded prospect of future rewards, and a clear 
knowledge of the nature and excellency of things eternal and not 
seen, the present intimations of divine love, in cross dispensations, 
the supports of divine powerful grace under them, the usefulness 
of those calamities, by virtue of divine ordination and concurrent 
influence of the divine Spirit, verified in the experience of the 
sufferers, are laid aside, as natural religioH does, which knows no- 
thing of these, all that men can say to comfort under affliction, or 
arm against the horrors of death, is but an unprofitable amusement, 
or at least, like rattles and other toys we give to children, that do 
Rot in the least ease them of the pain they are under ; but do for 
a httle, divert the mind, while they are looked at ; but as soon as 
the first impression is over, which those new toys make on the 
mind, the sense of pain recurs again, with that redoubled force, 
which it always has, when it immediately succeeds either ease or 
want of sense. And if it is really violent, these things will not 
avail, no not to divert trouble for a little. It is but a sorry com- 
fort to tell me, that others are troubled as well as I, or worse ; that 
death, which I fear, will end it ; that I must bear it ; that I hdve 
other enjoyments, which yet present pain will not allow me to 
reHsh. Yet such are the best consolations that natural religion 
affords. 



CHAP. XH. 

Wherein the Proof of the Insufficiency of Natural Religion is 
concluded from a general View of the Experience of the World. 

AS a conclusion to, and illustration of what has hitherto be6n 
discoursed, for demonstrating the insufficiency of natural religion, 
I shall here offer a six-fold view of the experience of the world in 
general, without descending to particular instances, which have in 
part been touched at, and offered before, and are every where to 
be met with. 



214 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



1 . Let us view man as a creature made for this end, to glorify 
God and enjoy him, abstracting from the consideration of his cor- 
ruption, which the Deists sometimes deny, and sometimes with 
difficulty, do but in part admit. And let us conside;-ahim as left 
to pursue this noble end, in the use of his rational faculties, under 
the conduct of the mere light of nature : If we consider him thus, 
and inquire into the experience of the world, how far he has reach- 
ed this end, we shall find such an account, as will much confirm 
the truth we have hitherto asserted, and weaken the credit of the 
Deists' imaginary sufficiency of nature's light to conduct man to 
the end for which he was made. 

If we look to the generality of mankind, we shall find them in a 
posture much like that wherein the prophet saw the princes in the 
vision, with their backs to the chief end, never once thinking for 
what they were made, pursuing other things ; every one as lust 
led him, following his own humor, walking in a direct and open 
contradiction to that law, which was originally designed for the 
guide of our life, and the directory to bliss, that happiness, which 
all would have, though they know not where to find it. 

If we look at the philosophers, we may see them sitting up late, 
rising early, eating the bread of carefulness, wearying themselves 
in the search of happiness, running into hundreds of different no- 
tions about it, and yet not one of them hitting, or at least under- 
standing the true one ; and as little agreed about the way to it. — 
We may hear them talk of virtue, but never levelling it at its 
proper end, the glory of God. We may hear them urging its 
practice, but not upon the proper grounds. Rarely any regard to 
the authority of God, the only formal ground of obedience. Li- 
stead of plain rules useful to mankind, they obtrude cryptic and 
dark sentences, rather designed to make others admire them, than 
to be useful to any. They every where tack their own fancies 
to the divine law, a weight sufficient to sink it as to its truth, in 
the apprehensions of men, or at least, as to its usefulness. They 
offer a rule defective in most things of moment, corrupt in many, 
ruining in not a few instances, destitute of any other authority 
than their own say, or ipse dixit, unintelligible to the generality, 
and naked as to inducements to obey it. 

2. Let us consider man as made for this end, but barred from 
its attainment, by the interposition of those great liinderances and 
rubs which now are certainly in its way ; I mean darkness, guilt 
and corruption. These are stones in the way. How has nature's 
light acquitted itself as to the rolling them away ? Truly they have 
been like Sysiphus's stone, as fast as they have rolled them up, as 
fast they have recoiled and fallen back on them. 

As to thc-t darkness that has overspread the minds of men, if 
we look at the generality, we find them like blind men, content to 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 215 



jog on in the dark, mired every where, stumbling frequently, and 
failing sometimes dangerously ; yet satisfied with their case, not 
looking after light : not so much because they want it not, as be- 
cause they have no notion of it, or its usefulness ; like blind men 
that never saw the sun, and therefore suffer the loss of it with less 
regret, than they who once saw, but now havo lost their eyes. — 
They follow as they are led ; are ready to take hold of any hand, 
though of one as blind as themselves, and are never sensible of the 
mistake, till sunk where they cannot get out again. The phiioso- 
phers indeed seem a little more sensible of their ease, and fancying 
truth to be hid in Democritus's well, dive for it, but lose their 
breath before they come at it, and fall into dangerons eddies or 
whirlpools, where they lose themselves instead of finding truth ; 
or try ing to fetch it up, but with a line too short, they fetch up 
some weeds that are nourished by their nearness to the waters, and 
please themselves with those, i After all their painful endeavors 
we find them groping in the dark, as to all useful and necessary 
knowledge of God, or the w;V^ of worshipping him ; — of ourselves, 
our happiness, our sins, the way of obtaining pardon, our duty or 
our corruption. 

As to guilt, if we look at the case of mankind, and their endea- 
vors for the removal of it, we find the most part drowned in end- 
less despair or fatal security ; like men at their wit's end, trying 
all ways that fear, superstition, or racked imagination can supply, 
and stiil unsatisfied with their own inventions, tJ^ey are ready to 
try all ways that self-designing men, or even the Devil can sufigest 
to them, sparing no cost, no travel, no pain. They stand not to 
give the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. The philo- 
sophers either think, through their pride, they have no sin, be- 
cause they are not quite so bad as the vulgar ; or, if they stiil re- 
tain some sense of sin, they are driven into the utmost perplexity, 
being convinced of the wickedness of the measures taken by the 
vulgar, or at least of their uselessness and impertinency, and yet 
unable to find out better ; they try to divert their thoughts from a 
sore they know no plaister for. 

As to corruption, we find all confessing it, crying out of the dis- 
ease ; and indeed it is rather because it cannot be hid, — the sore 
runs, than because it is painful to many. The generality despair 
of stemming the tide, and finding it easiest to SAvim with the stream, 
are willingly carried headlong. The body of philosophers are in- 
deed like weak watermen, on a strong stream, they look one way 
but are carried another. Though they pretend they aim at the 
ruining of vice, yet really they do it no hurt, save that they speak 
against it. A few of the best of them being ashamed to be found 
amongst the rest, swimming, or rather carried down the stream 



216 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



on the surface, that is, in open vice, have dived to the bottom ; but 
reallj" made as much wsy under water as the others above. 

3. Let us view mankind under the goodness and forbearance of 
God, these helps which some think suJfficient. These words are 
used, or rather abused, as a bhnd in a matter of very great import- 
ance ; and men who use them will scarce tell, if they can, even in 
the 5-ubject of the present discourse, in what sense they use them. 
But let it be as it will, some pretend the works of providence, par- 
ticularly God's goodness and forbearance sufficient. Well, let us 
s^e the experience of the v/orld in this. 

If we view mankind under this consideration, we may see them 
so far from being led to repentance, that most part never once took 
notice of this conduct of God. Others, and they not a few, have 
abused it to the worst purposes. Because judgmeiit against an 
evil 71'ork) has not been speedil?/ executed, therefore their hearts 
were nhoUy set in them to do evil. The more inquisitive have 
raised a charge against God as encouraging wickedness. And as 
for tlie favors they enjoyed themselv^ , they looked on them, not 
as calls to repentance, but as rewards for their pretended virtues, 
and scanty ones too, below the worth of them. Not a few of 
them have gone near to arraign God of injustice, for lesser afflic- 
tions they were visited with ; while others have been entangled 
and tossed to and fro by cross appearances. So that none have by 
this goodness of God been led to repentance. 

4. Ijet us view man living in the place where revelation obtains, 
or where the Christian religion is professed and taught, but re- 
nouncing and rejecting it, and in profession owning only natural re- 
ligion : Such are the Deists among If we consider their words, 
they talk indeed that natural religion is sufficient ; and to make it 
indeed appear so, some of them have adorned it with jewels bor- 
rowed from the temple of God, ascribing^o nature's light discove- 
ries in religion, which originally were owing to revelation, and were 
never dreamed of where it did not obtain : though being once dis- 
covered, they have gained the consent of sol3er reason. But now 
we are not considering the speech, but the power of these men ; 
not what they sa;r of the sufficiency of natural religion, but what 
real experience they have of it, and what evidence they give of 
this in the'T practice. 

If we thus consider them, we find, that although when they 
have a mind to impose their notion of the sufficiency of natural 
religion upon others, they pretend, that it is clear, as to a great 
many points or principles, that are confessedly of the greatest 
moment in religion : yet when they begin to speak more plainly 
and freely their own in^vTird seiuinients, they shew that they are 
not fixed, no not about the very principles themselves, even these 
of them V hich are of the gieatest consequence. Mr» Gildon, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEIST.S, 217 



publisher of the Oracles of Reason, is not far from asserting two 
anti-gods, the one good the other evil ; and so falls in with the 
Persians.^ Blount favours the opinion of Ocellu^y Lucanus, abbut 
the worhVs cternUi/^ consequently denies, or at least hesitates 
about crealion.-f The immaterialUy of the soul seems to be flatly 
rejected by them all. Nor do they seem very firm as to its wi- 
mortality. In short, after they liave been at so much pains to 
trim up natural religion, and make it look sufEcient-like, they yet 
express a hesitation about its svjfficiena/ to eternal /{/e.J We 
have heard Herbert to this purpose already. Blount, in a letter 
to Dr. Sydenham, prefixed to the Deist^s Reasons, says plainly, 
that it is not safe to trust Deism alone, without Christianity joined 
to it. And the Deist's hope is summed up in this, in the 4th 
chap, of the Summary of the Deisfs Reasons, That " there is 
more probability of his salvation, than of the credulous and ill-living 
Papist ;"|| and that is just none at all. 

Nor does their practice give one jot of a better proof of the 
suflSciency of that religion which they profess: yea, it affords con- 
vincing evidence of its weakness, uselessness, and utter insufficien- 
cy. Their lives shew that they are not in earnest about any thing 
in religion. They are Latitudinarians in practice. Their words, 
their actions, have no savour of a regard to a Deity; but they go 
on in all manner of impieties in practice, and perhaps in the end^ 
put a period to a wretched life by their own hands, as Blount, 
Uriel, Acosta and others have done, and the survivors justify the 
leed, upon trifling and childish reasonings ; as not knowing but 
hey may one day be put to use the same shift. I am not in the 
least deterred from asserting thiSj by the commendations that the 
publisher of the Oracles of Reason gives to Mr. Blount, as a per- 
son remarkable for virtue. If a profane, jocular, and unbecom- 
, ing treatment of the grayest and most important truths that belong, 
even by his own acknowledgment, to natural religion; yea, and are 
the principal props of it ; and if gross and palpa!3le disingenuity be 
instances of that virtue that he ascribes to him, and evidences of 
those just and adequate notions of the Deity, in which he says 
Mr. Blount was bred up, I could give instances enough from the 
book itself of^such virtues : But I love not to rake in the ashes of 
the dead. Again, others of the Deists, having wearied themselves 
in chace of a phantom to no purpose, and having neither the grace 
nor ingenuity to return to the religion they abandoned, either land 
in downright Atheism in principle and practice, or they throw 
themselves into the arms of the pretended infallible guide ; and 

* Oracles of Reason, page 194, 212, 228. 
t Ibid, 154, 187- 
i Ibid, 117, 127. 

(i Oracles of Reason, at the beg'in^ing', account of Blount's life;— Ibid, 

2a 



218 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



thereby give evidence how well founded the Jesuitical maxim Is, 
Blake a man once an Atheist^ he will soon turn Papist, 

5. Let us view men living under the gospel, embracing it in 
profession, but unacquainted with that Spirit that gives life and 
poiver to its doctrines, precepts, promises, threats and ordinances. 
They, besides that they are possessed of all the advantages of 
nature's light, have moreover the superadded advantages of reve- 
lation, and its institutions. They have ministers and parents in- 
structing them, and discipline to restrain them, they arc trained 
up in the faith of future rewards, and instructed in the nature and 
excellency of them, for their encom^agement ; they have punish- 
ments proposed to them to deter them from sin, which they profess 
to believe ; yet if we consider the practice of the generality of 
such persons, it gives a sufficient evidence, that all this is not 
enough. Who but a man blind or foolish can then dote so far as to 
pretend nature's light alone sufficient, when it is not so, even 
when helped by so many accessory improvements ? 

If we consider the experience of them who have received the 
gospel in truth, and felt its power, we find they have indeed reach- 
ed the ends of religion in part, and have a fair prospect as to fur- 
ther success. Well, what is their sense of the sufficiency of na- 
ture's light ? Why, if you observe them in their public devotions, 
you shall hear heavy out-cries of theis own darkness, weakness 
and wickedness ; you may hear serious prayers for divine light, and 
life to quicken them, strengthen and incline them to follow dutj^, 
and support them in it, against the power of temptations, which 
they own themselves unable to master, without the powerful aids 
of diviae grace. If you follow them into their retirements, where 
the matter is managed betwixt God and them alone, wliere they 
are under none of these temptations, to maintain the credit of any 
received notions, and therefore must be presumed to speak out 
the practical sense of the state of their case, without any disguise ; 
there you sliail find nothing but deep confessions of guilt, darkness 
and inability, with earnest cries, prayers and tears, for supplies of 
grace : and Avhat they attain in matters of religion, you shall find 
them freely owning, that it was not the?/ but the grace of God in 
. them that brought them to this. And the more tSat any is con- 
cerned about religion, or know and has attained in it, still you will 
find him the more sensible of this state of tilings. 

This is but a hint of what might have been said : but I have 
rather chosen to offer a general scheme of the argument from ex- 
pcriencey wliich every one, from his own private reading and ob- 
servation, may illustrate with observations and particular instances, 
than to insist upon it ^t large, which woiild have required a vo- 
lume. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE 3I0DERN DEISTS. 219 



CHAP. XHI. 

Wherein we make a transition to the Deisfs Pleas for their opin- 
ion, and take particular Notice of the Articles to which they re- 
duce their Catholic ReligioUy give some Account of Baron 
Herbert, the first Inventor of this Catholic Religion, his Books, 
and particularly of that rvhich is inscribed De Religione Gen- 
tilium, as to the Matter and Scope of it, and the Importance of 
what is therein attempted to the Deist's Cause. 

WE have now proposed and confirmed our own opinion ; our 
next business is to inquire more particularly into that of the 
Deists, and consider what they offer for it. 

The first set of Deists, so far as I can learn, did satisfy them- 
selves mth the rejection of all supernatural revelation, and a gene- 
ral pretence, that natural religion was suflScient, without telling 
the world of what articles it did consist, what belonged thereto, 
or how far it went. The learned lord Herbert was the first who 
did cultivate this notion, and dressed Deism, and brought it to 
something of a form. This honor he assumes to himself, glories 
in it, and we see no ground to dispute this with him. I have met 
with nothing in any of the modern Deists that makes towards this 
subject, which is not advanced by him, and probably borrowed 
from his writings. It will not therefore be impertinent to give the 
^^-^ader some account of him. 

This Edward Herbert was a descendant from a younger brother 
of the family of Pembroke. He was brother to the famous George 
Herbert, the divine poet. His education was at Oxford, where he 
was for some time a fellow Commoner in University College there. 
After he left the University, he improved himself by travels into 
foreign nations, and obtained the reputation of a scholar, a states- 
man and a soldier. He was made Knight of the Bath at the coro- 
nation of king James I. in England, who afterwards sent him as 
ambassador to liewis XIII. on behalf of the French Protestants : 
and upon his return he was created Baron of Castle-Island, in 
Ireland ; and by king Charles I. anno. 1 630, he was created a 
Baron of England, by the title of Loi'd Herbert of Cherbury, and 
died in 1648.* 

This learned person having once unhappily apostatised from the 
religion wherein he was bred, into Deism, though, as other Deists 
likewise do, he did still seem to own the Church of England ; yet 
he set himself for the mauitenance of Deism in his writings. And 



* See Geograph. Diction, articles Herbert and Deim, See also the Life of 
Mr. Georg-e Herbert. 



220 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



to this purpose he published some time after the year 1 640, (for I 
have not the first edition of it) his book de Veritafe, and shortly 
after another, de Causis Erronm. These two books are for the 
most part philosophical, and written with some singularity of notion. 
What is truth in them is rather delivered in a 7ie7V may than new ; 
and by the use of vulgar words in new and uncommon acceptations, 
and his obscure way of management of his notions, is scarcely in- 
telligible to any but metaphysical readers, nor to such, without 
greater application, than perhaps the matter is worth. I should 
not think myself concerned in either of these two books, their 
subject being philosophical, were it not that it is his avowed design 
in them, to lay a foundation for his peculiar notions in religion. 

There are two things at which Herbert, in these and his other 
writings, plainly aims at — to overthrow revelation and to establish 
natural religion in its room. It is not my design or province at 
present, to defend revelation against the efforts of this or any other 
author, though I think it were a business of no great difficulty to 
remove what Herbert has said against it ; yet since I have men- 
tioned his attempt upon it, I cannot pass it without some short, but 
just remarks upon his unfair, if not disingenuous way of treating 
revelation. 

1. On many occasions, with what candor and ingenuity himself 
knew, he professeth a great respect to revelation, and particularly 
to the scripture's, and pretends he designs nothing in prejudice of 
the established religion : but any one that peruses ths books will 
soon see, that this is only like Joab^s kisSy a blind to make his 
reader secure, and fear no danger from the sword that he has under 
his garment : For notwithstanding of this, he every where insinu- 
ates prejudices against all revelation, as uncertain, unnecessarif^ 
and of little or no use to any, save those to whom it was originally, 
or rather immediately given. 

2. Upon all occasions, and sometimes without any occasion given 
him from his subject, he makes sallies upon truths of the greatest 
importance in the Christian religion ; such as the doctrines of the 
corruption of our nature, satisfaction of Christ, and the decrees 
of God, &c. And having represented them disingenuously, or 
else ignorantly, (which I less suspect in a maa of his learning) not 
in that way they are proposed in scripture, or taught by those who 
maintain them, but under the disguise of gross misrepresentations, 
mistaken notions, and strained consequences : and having thus put 
them in beast's skins, as the primitive persecutors did the Chris- 
tians, he sets his dogs upon them to worry them ; and this without 
any regard had unto the foundation they have in the scriptures, or 
the evidence of the proofs that may be advanced for the scriptures 
in general, or these doctrines in particular, and without all consi- 
fleration of the inconsistency of this way of treating truths plainly 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 221 



taught, and inculcated as of the greatest importance in the scrip- 
tures, with that respect, which upon other occasions he pretends 
to that divine book. 

3. He states wrong notions of the grounds whereupon revela- 
tion is received, and overthrows those imaginary ones he has set 
up, as the reasons of our belief of the scriptures, and then tri- 
umphs in success. How easy is it to set up a tnan of straw and 
beat him down with the finger I 

4. The Deists generally, and Herbert in particular, do grant, 
that the Christian revelation has manifestly the advantage of all 
other pretenders to revelation, as in respect of the intrinsic excel- 
lency of the matter, so likewise in respect of the reasons that 
may be pleaded for its truth. ^ And so certain and evident is 
this, that one of their number owns, that Christianity has " the 
" fairest pretensions of any religion in the world," and exhorts to 
" make a diligent enquiry into it ; arguing, " that if the pre- 
*' tences of Christianity be well grounded, it cannot be a frivolous 

and indifferent matter and he grants further, that " the truth 
of the matters of fact which confirm it, is hardly possible to be 
denied. "t Now notwithstanding of this manifest and acknow- 
ledged difference betwixt the scriptures and other pretenders t<:» 
revelation, when Herbert speaks of revelation, he jumbles all pre- 
tenders together without distinction, and urges the faults of the 
most ridiculous and obviously spurious pretenders, against revela- 
tion, in general, as if every particular one, and especially Chris- 
tianity, were chargeable with these faults : Is this candid and fair 
dealing, to insinuate into the unwary reader that these palpable evi- 
dences of imposture are to be found in all revelations alike, while, 
even they themselves being judges, the scriptures are not 
concerned in them ? Yet this is the way that Christianity 
treated by this learned author ; and his steps have been closely 
traced in this piece of scandalous disingenuity, (for I can give it 
no milder name,) by Blount and the other writers of the party, 
as I could make appear by many instances, if need required. 

5. Our author makes high pretences to accuracy in searcliinp: 
after truth, and treats all other authors with the greatest scorn and 
contempt imaginable, as short in that point : yet he seldom tt ites 
a question fairly, but huddles all up in the dark, especially, when 
he speaks about revelation, and heaps together difficulties about all 
the concernments of revealed religion, without any regard to the 
distinct heads to which they belong. This is a ready way to 
shake the faith of his reader about all truths, but establish him in 
none. 

Other reflections I forbear, though he has given fair occasion for 
many : but this is not my subject. This part of his discourse has 

* Ileligio Laici page 9,10. Letter to the Deists, page 139, 



223 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



been animadverted on by a learned author, though the book is not 
come to my hand. =^ 

The other branch of our author's design, vis. His attempt to 
estabHsh the sufficiency of natural religion, is that wherein I am 
directly concerned. This he only proposes in his book de Veritate 
at the close, with a short explication of his famed five Articles, of 
which more anon. And in a small treatise entitled Religio Laid, 
subjoined to his book de Causis Errorum, he further explains 
them. The design of this last mentioned treatise is to shew, that 
the vulgar can never come to certainty about the truth of any 
particular revelation, or the preferableness of its pretences unto 
others, and that therefore of necessity they must sit down satis* 
fied with the religion he offers them, consisting of five articles, 
agreed to, if we believe him, by all religions. 

The religion, consisting of five articles, which we shall exhibit 
immediately, he attempts to prove sufficient by some arguments 
in that last mentioned treatise. But the principal proof, on which 
our author lays the whole stress of his cause, is at large exhibited 
in another treatise of our author, de Religione Gent ilium, publish- 
ed at Amsterdam, anno 1663, by J. Vossius, son to the great 
Crcr. Joan. Vossius. His pleadings in these and his other writ- 
ings we shall call to an account by and bye. 

Herbert, in his treatise de Religione Gentilium, pretends. What- 
ever mistakes the Gentile world was under in matters of religion ; 
yet there was as much agreed to by all nations, as was necessary 
to their eternal happiness. Particularly, he tells us, that they 
were agreed about five Articles, of natural religion, which he 
thinks are sufficieut, viz. 1 . That there is one supreme God. 2. 
That he is to he worshipped. 3. That virtue is the principal 
part of his worship. 4. That we must repent of our sins, 5. 
That there are rewards and punishments both in this life and that 
which is to come. J, 

Charles Blount, who set himself at the head of the Deists some 
few years ago, in a small treatise entitled Religio Laid, printed 
1683, which in effect is only a translation of Herbert's book of 
the same name, inverting a little the order, but without the addi- 
tion of any one thought of moment ; in this treatise, I say, he 
reckons up the articles of natural religion much after the same 
manner. 1 . That there is one only suprewe God. 2. That he 
chiefly is to be worshipped. 3. That virtue, goodness and piety, 
accompanied with faith in, and love to God, are the best ways of 
worshippmg Mm. 4. That we should repent of our sins from 
the boltom of oiir hearts, and turn to the right way. 5. That 
there is a reward and punishment after this Hfe.f 

* Baxter's More Reasons fbv the Christian Religiorj, and no Reason against, 
it, in the Appendix. 

t Be lUWg. Gcntil. paj^e 186, 210, 8cc. f Ibid. 49, 50. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 223 



Another, in a letter directed to Mr. Blount, subscribed A. W. 
has given us an account of them somewhat different from both the 
former, in seven articles. 1. That there is one infinite, and eter- 
nal God, creator of all things. 2. That he governs the world hif 
providence. 3. That it is our duty to worship and obey him as our 
Creator and Governor. 4. That our worship consists in prayer 
to him, and praise of him. 5. That our obedience consists in the 
rules of right reason, the practice whereof is moral virtue, 6. 
That we are to expect rewards and punishments hereafter accord- 
ing to our actions in this life ; which includes the soul's immor- 
tality, and is proved by our admitting providence. 7. That, wheii 
we err from the ndes of our duty, we ought to repent and trust in 
God^s mercy for pardon.^l To the same purpose, without any 
alteration of moment from what we have above quoted, Herbert 
reckons up and repeats the same articles in his other treatises. 

These other authors do but copy after Herbert. To him the 
honor of this invention belongs, and he values himself not a little 
upon it. Let us hear himself. " Atque ita ( sed non sine muUi- 

plici accurataque religionum turn dissectione, turn inspcciione) 
" quinque illos articulos sapius jam adductos deprehendi. Qui- 
^* bus etiam inventis me feliciorem Archimede qvovis existima- 
« ^i,"^ He acquaints us, that he consulted divines and writers 
of all parties, but in vain, for to find the universal religion he 
sought after ; it is not therefore likely, if any had moulded this 
universal religion, or put it into a form meet for the Deist's pur- 
pose before him, that it could have escaped his observation and 
diligence. 

Now we have liad a sufficient view of the articles, to which the 
Deists reduce their religion. Let us next inquire after the proof 
of this religion ; the burden whereof must lean upon Herbert. 
The Deists since his time have added nothing that has a shew of 
proof that I can yet see. Well, after he has in his other treatises, 
as has been said, proposed and explained his religion he at length 
comes to the proof of it in his treatise de Religione Gentilium. 
Here the main strength of his cause lies, and with this we shall 
mainly deal ; yet so as not to overlook any thing that has a shew 
of proof elsewhere in his writings. 

In this treatise de Religione Gentilium, he makes it his work to 
illustrate and prove, " That the abovementioned five articles were 
universally believed by people of all religions." This is the pro- 
position at which that whole book aims. In the managemeat of 

t- Oracles of Reason, pag'c 197. 

* De Reli^. Gent, page 218.—" And thus, thoug'k not without a manifold 
" and accurate dissection and inspection of religion, I have found those five 
" articles, that have already been often quoted, on finding which I thought 
*■ myself more happy than any Archimedes." 



224 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 



this subject our author gives great proof of diligence, vast readiligj 
and much philological learning. He gives large accounts of the 
idolatry of the Heathens and their pleas for it, or rather of the 
pleas, which our author thought might be made for it ; which has 
given occasion to several conjectures, as to our author's design in 
that book, and his other writings. 

I find a learned author who has bestowed a few short animadver- 
sions on this book, inclined to think it not unlikely, that Herbert's 
principal design was, if not to justify, yet to excuse the idolatry of 
the church of Rome.'* And if one considers how many pleas 
Herbert makes for the Gentiles' idolatry, and that they are gener- 
ally such as may serve for the Romanists' purpose ; and if it is 
further considered, that Herbert elsewhere seems, upon many oc- 
casions, to found the whole certainty of revelation upon the au- 
thority of the church, and that alone, and the vast pov/er he gives 
to the church as to the appointment of rites, yea, and all the ordi- 
nances of worship ; if it is further considered how concerned some 
persons were for an accommodation with the church of Rome at 
that time, when our author wrote, and how far Herbert was con- 
cerned in that party, who were striving for this reconciliation ; if I 
say, all these things are laid together, this conjecture will not appear 
destitute of probability. I might add to this, that Herbert makes 
use of pleas not much unlike those which are used by the churcli 
of Rome to shake Protestants out of their faith, that they may at 
length fall in with the infallible guide. In fine, I dare be bold to 
undertake the maintenance of this against any opposer, that Her- 
bert's method followed out, will inevitably make the vulgar Atheists ; 
whether he designed by this to make them Papists, I know not. 
nor shall I judge. How far this conjecture will hold, I leave to 
others to judge. I shall only add this one thing more, that the 
seeming opposition of Herbert's design unto Popish principles, and 
his thrusts at the Romish clergy, will not be sufficient to clear him 
of all suspicion in this matter, with those who have seriously pe- 
rused the books written by Papists in disguise, on design to shake 
the faith of the vulgar sort of Protestants, in some of which, there 
is as great appearance at first view of a designed overthrow of Po- 
pery, and as hard things said against the Romish clergy. Good 
watermen can look one way and row another. What there was of 
this, will one day be manifest. 

The Deists m-aintain, that " their religion, consisting of ihf 
abovenamed five articles is sufficient." It is the avowed design of 
Herbert in his book, to assert this and prove it ; and yet he spends 
it wholly in proving this proposition, " That these five articles 
did universally obtain." Now it seems of importance to inquire, 



* Abrah. Heidanus de Orlgine Erroris, Lib. YI Cap, XI. pag-e SrO. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 22j 

kwhy Herbert should be at so much pains to prove this. How 
iPpes universal reception of these articles establish his religion, and 
of what consequence is it to the Deists' cause ? 

For clearing this, it must be observed, that it is a common reli- 
gion that Herbert is inquiring after, Avhich may be equally useful 
to all mankind ; and nothing can agree to this, which is not com- 
monly received. And Herbert has before laid down this for a 
principle, that the only way to distinguish common notices from 
these which are not so, is universal reception. This according to 
him is the only sure criterion. " Religio est notitia communis — 
'^'^ Videndum igitur est, qucenam in religione ex consensu univer- 
" sali sunt agnita : Universa conferantur, qu(Z aulem cib omni^ 
" bus tanquam vera in religione agnoscuntur, communes, notiti(Z 
" habendcR sunt. Sed dices esse laboris improbi : at alia ad veri- 
" tales notitiarum communium non superest via ; quas tamen ita 
" magnifacimuSy ut in illis solis sapiential divince, universalis ar- 
" cana deprehendi possint."'^ 

But to set this matter in a full light, I shall make it appear. That 
a failure in this attempt, to prove that these were universally agreed 
to, is inevitably ruinous to the Deists' cause and plea for a common 
religion ; though the proof of this point will be very far from in- 
ferring that there is a common religion, as shall be cleared after- 
wards. And this will give further light into the reasons of Her- 
bert's undertaking. 

To this purpose then it is to be observed, That the Deists be- 
ing agreed about the rejection of the Christian religion, and that re- 
velation whereon it is founded, they are for ever barred from the 
acceptance of any other rev elation as the measure of religion, that 
the world knows : For they own no revelation ever had so fair a 
plea, and such probable grounds to support its pretensions, as the 
Christian revelation has. However therefore, the generality of the 
Deists were satisfied to lay aside the Christian religion, which will 
not allow them thnt liberty in following the courses that they are 
resolved upon, without putting any thing into its place ; yet the 
more sober sort saw, that to reject this religion and put none in its 
place, would, by the world, be counted plain Atheism, which de- 
servedly is odious in the world. Therefore they saw there was a 
necessity of substituting one in its place. 

* De Veritate, pag-. 55. " Religion is a common notice, \ve oug-ht to 

** see therefore what things in religion are acknowledged by universal con- 

sent. Let all be gathered together, and those things in religion which 
" are acknowledged* b;f all to be true are to be reckoned common notices. 

But you will say that this is a task of immense labor. But no other way 
" remains*for arriving at those truths that may be reckoned common notices. 
" Which, -however, we value so highly, that in tJiese alone the secrets of 

divine universal wisdom can be found." 

29 



226 



jLls INaUIRY INTO THE 



Now since revelation was rejected, nothing remained, tut to pre- 
tend, that reason was able to supply the defect and afford a suffi- 
cient religion, a religion that is able to answer all the purposes for 
which others pretend revealed religion necessary. 

When once they were come this length, it was easy to see that 
it might be inquired, Whether this rational religion lay within the 
reach of every man's reason, or was only to be fomid out by per- 
sons of learning ? 

If it is preteiided, that only persons of learning, application 
and uncommon abilities, could attain the discovery of this religion, 
the difficulties whereon the pretenders are cast, are obvious. 

What shall then become of their argument against revealed reli- 
gion, " that it is not universal, that it is not received by all man- 
kind, that therefore it is not attended with sufficient evidence." — 
Upon this supposition there is a fair ground for retorting the argu- 
ment, with no less, if not more force, against natural religion. 

Again, what shall become of that plea, which they make for na- 
tural religion, " that God must provide all his creatures in the 
means necessary for attaining that happiness they are capable of?'" 
May they not, on this supposition, be urged, that, according to it, 
the generality are not provided with such means ? 

Nor will it avail to pretend, that those who are capable of this 
discovery, are obliged to teach others the laws of nature. For, 
it may be inquired. Must the people take all on trust from them, 
or see with their own eyes ? If they must take all on trust, then is 
there not here a fair occasion for chai*ging priest-craft upon them, 
who blame it so much in others ? Will not this oblige our wits, men 
of reason and learning, to turn creed and system-makers ? Further, 
what will they say of their own neglect, and the neglect of the 
learned world in this matter ? How will they reconcile this to the 
notion of God's goodness, of which they talk so much, to suspend 
the happiness of the greater part of mankind on their care and dili- 
gence, who quite neglect them, but keep up their knowledge, and 
thereby expose the poor vulgar to inevitable ruin ? Moreover, if 
they set up for teachers, they must shew their credentials. Final- 
ly, there is no place, upon this supposition, left for the strongest 
pleas for a sufficient religion, that is common to mankind, which 
are taken from the nature of God and man, and their mutual rela- 
tion ; because all these arguments conclude equally for all mankind, 
and so are not adapted to assert some peculiar prerogative in one 
above another. Nor are any able to justify a claim to any further 
ability this way, than he can satisfy the world ©f, by the effects of 
it. When a man pretends to no other abilities, than such as are 
due to human nature, that he is a man is sufficient to justify his 
claim ; but if he pretends to some eminency in natural or acquired 
endowments above others, he must give such proofs of it, as the 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 227 



nature of the thing requires ; that is, he must make it appear, that 
he has that ability, by acting proportionable to the nature and de- 
gree of the power that he claims ; and further than this is done, no 
wise man will believe him. It will not help them out here, to say, 
that they only of better capacities, and who have more leisure, are 
able to discover this natural religion ; but the vulgar ai*e capable 
of judging and seeing with their own eyes when it is proposed : 
For, besides that all the former difficulties, or most of them recur 
here, still it may be inquired, Is this made appear ? The difficult- 
ies on this side are unsurmountable. 

Wherefore of necessity, they must maintain, " that every man 
is able to find out and discover what is sufficient for himself in mat- 
ters of religion." But now when this is asserted, if the experi- 
ence of the world lie against them, and it be found, as is commonly 
supposed, that many nations, nay, the far greater part of mankind, 
had no such religion, this will much prejudge their opinion, about 
every man's having this ability of finding out a religion, or as much 
in religion as was necessary to his own happiness. 

How will they persuade the world of such an ability, if experi- 
ence is not made appear to favor them ? It is commonly thought, 
, and we have made it appear, that the wisest men, when they essay- 
ed what power they had of this sort, foully blundered, and fell 
short of satisfying either themselves or others ; and that the world 
generally acknowledged the want of any experience of this ability, 
and therefore looked after revelations with that greediness, that laid 
them open to be imposed on, by every vain pretender to superna- 
tural revelation. 

Now if things are allowed to be thus, how shall they prove man 
possessed of this power, if they are cut off from the advantage of 
the usual fountain of conviction, in matters of this nature ? What 
is the way we come to know, that all men have a power of under- 
standing, or that such a power is due to his nature ? Is it not hence, 
that wherever we meet with men, we find them exerting the acts 
of understanding ? And the like may be said of his other powers. 
Now if it is once admitted, that there are single persons, nay, 
whole nations, yea more, many nations that have no experience of 
this pretended ability, in reference to matters of religion, how will 
they ever be able to persuade the Avorld that all men have it ? 
More especially, if it be admitted, that the learned themselves 
were here defective, as to that which persons of the meanest abili- 
ties and least leisure are supposed able for : this will look very ill, 
if a man who toils all his days at the plough and harrow, could 
make this discovery, how could a man of learning and application 
find it hard. 

In a word, if things are thus stated, as is generally supposed, 
and has been already proven, and shall be further cleared anon, 



228 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



then there is little left them to pretend for this natural and univer- 
sal ability of mankind in matters of religion, if not perhaps, to tell 
us a story of God's being obliged, in point of goodness, to endow 
all mankind with a capacity, whereof there is no evidence in expe- 
rience ; yea, which the experience of the world plainly declares 
them to want. But this will not easily take with men of sobriety 
and sense : For it is not more evident, that there is a God, than, 
that this God must do whatever is proper and siiitable for him to 
do : And on the contrary, that it was not necessary or proper for 
him to do any thing that really he has not done. If then, any shall 
pretend it becoming or necessary for God to do any thing, which 
experience shews he has not done, he will be so far from obtaining 
credit with the world, that on the contrary he will justly fall under 
the suspicion of Atheism, and an evil design against God. For to 
say, that God in point of goodness, was obliged to do this, which 
experience shews he has not done is plainly to say, God acted not 
as became him. There was therefore a plain necessity of under- 
taking to prove experience on their side, if Deism was to be sup- 
ported. 

If the common apprehensions of men, who enjoy the light (rf* 
Christianity, with respect to the state of the Heathen world, are 
well grounded, all the pretences of Deists as to the sufficiency of 
natural religion are forever ruined, and quite subverted. 

It was but necessary therefore, that the learned Herbert, who 
undertook to maintain the cause, should attempt to shew, that ex- 
perience was on their side, and that in fact a religion in itself suffi- 
cient did universally obtain. And he had the more reason to be 
concerned in this matter, because he avows it as his opinion, that 
without a supposition of such an universal religion as the Deists do 
plead for, Providence cannot be maintained. " FA quidem, says 

he, qiiiim media, ad victim vestitumque hie accommodata suppe- 
" ditarit cunctis natura sive provideutia rerum communis, snspi- 

cari non potui, eundem Deiim, sive ex natura, sive ex gratia in 
" suppeditandis ad beatiorem hoc nostro statnm mediis ulli homi- 
" nmn deesse posse, vet velle, adeo ut licet mediis illis parum recte 
" vel feliciter usi sint Gentiles, hand ita tamen per Deum opti- 
" mum maximum steterit, quo minus salvifierejit."'^ And as it 
is clear that this author thinks, that Providence is not to be main- 
tained without an universal religion ; so it is sufficiently evident, 

* De Relig. Gentil. Cap. 1. pag. 4. And indeed as the common na- 

" ture or providence of things here, has furnished all men with full means of 
" food and cloathing-, I could not suspact that the same God, either from 
" his nature or from grace, could or would be wanting- to any of mankind in 

supplying him with the means of attaining a more happy' state than the 

present, so that although the Heathens used those means unskilfully or un- 
^ happil_v, yet the best and greatest God was not to be blamed for their not 

l-e.ng f,aved.'' 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 229 



that this universal religion is not to be maintained, if experience 
lies against it. 

Here then was a plain necessity for undertaking this argument, 
and proving, or at least pretending to prove, that all mankind had 
a sufficient religion, or were able to know all that' was necessary. — 
For we see the whole frame of Deism falls to the ground, if this is 
overthrown. This therefore was an undertaking worthy of our 
noble author's great parts, long experience, great charity to man- 
kind, and the great concern he professes to find in himself for the 
vindication of Providence* 

And sure if such a man, after so much pains, has failed in the 
proof of this point, any that may succeed him, may justly despair 
of success. He read all the Heathen authors to find this univer- 
sal religion, and he was as willing and desirous to find it as any 
man. And he has given in this learned book evidence enough of 
his reading. 

But since no religion was to be admitted, save that whereon all 
men were agreed, it was wisely done by our author, that he reduc- 
ed this universal creed to a few articles. For one who knew so 
much of the state of the world, could not but see, that they were 
not very many wherein they were agreed. 

Well, he undertakes and goes through with the work, and con- 
cludes with that memorable triumph above mentioned ; " Atqiir 
" ita C sed non sine multipliciy accurataque religionum turn dissec- 
" tione, turn inspedione J quhique illos urticulos, scepius jam ad- 

ductos deprehendi. Qiiibiis etiam inventis me feliciorem qiiovis 
" Arckimede existimavi.^^ 

But one might possibly ask, How it could cost our author so 
much labor and pains to find out this religion, and to sever the ar- 
ticles belonging to it from others, with which they were intermix- 
ed, when every illiterate man must be supposed able to do this ? 

However, if our author is not belied by common fame, he re- 
pented, that he had spent his time so ill in contributing so far to 
the advancement of irreligion ; though others contradict this and 
tell us, that dying he left this advice to his children, — " They 
" talk of trusting in Christ for salvation ; but I would have you be 
" virtuous, and trust to your virtue, to make you happy." 

Whatever there is as to this, I shall now proceed to examine 
OUT author's arguments. 



•230 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



CHAP. XIV. 

Wherein it is inquired, Whether Herbert has proved that his five 
Articles did universally obtain ? 

WE have heard our author's five articles above ; he pretends to 
make it appear, that they were every where received ; we shall 
DOW inquire, Whether the arguments adduced by him do evince 
this ? and then in the next place, we shall see whether it is indeed 
true. And for method's sake, we shall speak of every article 
apart, and dissect and inspect his book, to find all that he offers, 
which has the least appearance of proof. 

ARTICLE 1. 

There is One Supreme God. 

That which our author pretends to prove as to this article, is, 
that it was generally owned by all nations, that there is one Su- 
preme Being, and that this <&upreme Being, whom they owned, 
was the same whom we adore. We are not now to dispute, whe- 
ther this article may be known by the light of nature ; nor whe- 
ther some particular persons went not a great way in the acknow- 
ledgment of it. This we have before granted : But the question 
is. Whether all nations agreed in this, that there is one Supreme 
God, and he the very same whom we adore ? Let us hear our au- 
thor, " Quamvis enim de aliquibus alijs Dei, sive attributis, sive 
" muneribus disceptatio inter veteres esset, uti suo loco monstra- 
" bimus ; summum tamen aliquem extare, and semper extitisse 
" Deum, neque apud sapientes, neque apud insipiejiites dubium 
" ( puto J fuit"^- And afterwards, when he thinks the first part 
of his article sufficiently cleared, he proceeds to the second part 
of it, " Reliquum est, ut Deum summum Genfilium, eundum ac 
nostrum esseprobemas.^'f Thus we see what our author pretends. 
Whether he has pxwed this, we are now to inquire. He has not 
fligested his arguments, nor cast them into any such mould, as 
might make it obvious wherein the force of them lies, and there- 
fore we must be at pains to scrape together, whatever is any where 

De Relig-. Gent. pag-. 158. — " For although there may have been dis- 
' putes among- the ancients about certain other attributes or offices of God, 
as we sliall shew in its ovra place, yet it was never doubted, I think ei- 
ther among- the wise or the unwise, that some supreme God existed, and 
had always existed." 

f Ibid, 166. " It remains to prove that the Supreme God of the Hea- 

thep-s was the same as ours/* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 231 



through his book dropped, that may contribute in the least toward 
the strengthening of his cause ; and we shall not omit any thing 
willingly, that has the least appearance of force. 

The first observation our author insists on to this purpose is, 
" That the Gentiles did not intend the same by the name of God^ 
that we now do. We by that name design the Supreme, Eternal, 
Independent Being ; whereas they intend no more than any virtue 
or power superior to man, on which man did any way depend." Id 
omne Deum vocitarunt quod vim aliquam eximiam in inferiora^ 
sed in homines prcBcipue ederet.X This he frequently inculcates, 
and tells us in the first page of his book, that the observation of 
this, was that which inclined him to think, or presume the Gentiles 
not chargeable with that gross Polytheism, with which most do, 
and he himself had, upon a slight view of their religion, well nigh- 
once concluded them chargeable. 

If the Gentiles meant the same by the word God, which we do, 
no doubt they stand chargeable with the most gross, unaccountable, 
absurd and ridiculous Polytheism imaginable : For scarcely is there 
any thing animate or inanimate, but by some way or other became 
deified. Quicquid humus, pelagus, cceliimy mirabile gignunt, id 
dixere dcos, colles, freta, flumina, Jlammas,^ 

But our author is not willing to admit that they were so absurd ; 
and to induce us to favorable sentiments, he has blessed us with 
thi« observation, That when they called those creatures animate 
and inaiiimate Gods, they meant no such thing as we do by that 
name. Well, if we should grant that the wiser sort, at least, or per- 
haps even the vulgar too, did sometimes so understand the word, as 
he alleges, will that serve his purpose, and satisfy him ? Nay, by no 
means, unless we grant him, that they always so understood the 
word, save when they spoke of the One true God. But this is 
too m.uch to be granted, unless he prove it ; especially if we are 
able to evince, that not a few, both wise and unwise, believed that 
there were more than One Eternal, Independent Being : and pos- 
sibly this may be made appear afterward. A learned author, in 
reproach of the Grecian and Roman learning, says, " That set- 
" ting aside what they learned out of Egypt, they could never by 
" themselves determine vrhether there were man^/ Gods or but 

The next thing our author insists on to this purpose, is, " That 
different names do not always point out different gods, but differ-- 
ent virtues of the same God." « Tot Bd appellationes, quot 

t De Re%. Gent. pag-. IS.-—" They called all that God, which produced any 
' considerable effect on inferior thing's, but especially upon men.'* 
• * A mc]. contr. Sym. Lib. I.—'''' Whatever wonderful thing the earth, the 

sea, or skv produced, that they called g-ods—hills, seas, rivers, fire." 



232 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



" nmnera, adeoq ; si triginta milia Deum nominal quod ah CEno- 
" mao 8c Hesiodo in Gcoycucc perhibetur snppojiat quispiam, & 
" tot ejus munera dari, fatendum est,^^ says Seneca, quoted by 
our author.J And consequentially to this, the same Seneca tells 
IIS, " Sapientes nequaquam Jovem eum intellexisse, qui in Capi- 
" tolio aut alijs templis fulmine armatus cerneretur, sed potius 
" jMeutem Animunque existimasse ommum custodem, univei-siq ; 
" administratorem, qui hanc rerum universalitatem condiderit, ac 
" eandem niitu suo gubernet, ac propterea divina quaeq ; nomina 
" ei con venire. Itaq ; optimo jure fatum appellari posse, ut a 
" quo ordo seriesve causarum inter se aptarum dependeat. Ita is 
" Providentiam dicit, quum ipse provideat ut omnia perpetuo ac 
" perenni quodam cursu, ad finem ad quem distinata sunt, currunt : 
" Naturam quoque nuncupari, ex eo enim cuncta nascuntur, per 
" eum quicquid vitfe est particeps, vivet : Mundi quin etiara no- 
" men illi congruere. Quicquid sub aspectum cadit, ipse est, qui 
*' seipso nititur, & omnia ambitu suo complectitur, universaque 
" numine suo complet."* To the same purpose speaks Servius 
of all the Stoicks, quoted like\Fise by our author.f The plain 
English of all is, he would pei-suade us that by these testimonies 
he has proved, that the Gentiles, when they attributed the name 
GOD to so many things, intended no more, but to set out so ma- 
ny different virtues, which all resided in the same GOD. 

As to this, we may grant, that our author has indeed proved. 
That different names do not always point out different gods ; for 
he has told us that each of their gods had many different names. 
But this will do him no service, if we grant not, that different 
names never point out different gods. But how shall we do this, 
when our author has shewed us, that many nations worshipped 
the sun, moon, and stars ; and thought them gods, yea, distinct 
ones too, different in their natures as well as iiames. Each of 



t Seneca Lib. 5. Cap. 17. Herbert de Relig. Gent. pag-. 13. — " We must 
" confess that there are as many names of God, as there are* offices, so that if 
" anyone suppose that there are thirty thousand different names of god's, as 
" is related by Oenomaus and Hesiod in his Theogony, we must acknowledge 
*' that there are likewise as many offices of the Deity.'* 

* Herb. De Rel. Gent. pag. 47. " Wise men did not mean by Jupi- 

" ter, that statue that is seen in the Capitol and other temples, armed with 
" thunderbolts ; but rather thought that that Mind and Soul was Jupiter, 
" which was the Guardian and Governor of the Universe, who formed this 
" whole world, and governs it by his nod, and that all divine names agree 
*' to him. He may therefore be very justly called Fate, as on him the order 
" and series of connected causes depends. Thus too he may be called Provi- 
** dence, as he provides that all things should tend to the end for which they 
" were destmed, in a constant and perpetual course. He may likevrise be 
** called Nature, for all things arise from him, and he gives life to all that 
" lives. Nay, even the name of "World may agree to him, for whatever is 
" visible is himself, who depends on himself, surrounds all things with his 
*' circumference, and fills all things ^yilh his divine presence." M 

t De He!i^. Gei;tU. pag. 57. M 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 233 



them indeed had different names, nay each of them had many 
names, titles or eulogies heaped on them by their fond worship- 
pers, who no doubt fancied, that their gods were smitten with that 
same vanity, wherewith they themselves were tainted ; which yet 
as learned Rivet observes, had a dangerous effect upon the vulgar 
in process of time : for they were not so quick in their observa- 
tions as our author. " Coacervatis enim elogiis, iitulisqiie conges- 
" tis, capi numen putabanif maximoqiie hide affici honore ; ita ut 
" tandem qucB diver sa tantum nomina superstitionis fuerant, 
" grassante errore, diversa numina habereniur.^^^' 

Further, we know full well that some of the more wise and 
learned men, especially after the light of the gospel began to shine 
through the world, began to be ashamed of their religion, and es- 
pecially the number of their gods, and to use the same shifts to 
palliate the foolish and wild Polytheism, which the gospel so fully 
exposed : and particularly Seneca, who was contemporary with 
Paul, (and by some, upon what ground I now enquire not, is said 
to have conversed with him) and others of the Stoicks steered this 
course, to vindicate their religion againstt he assaults of the Chris- 
tians. But it is as true, this was a foolish attempt, and its success 
I cannot better express, than in the words of the learned and ex- 
cellent Dr. Owen : " Postquam autem severius paulo inter nonnul- 
" los philosophari coeptum est, atque liraatiores de natura divina 
" opiniones inter plurimos obtinuerant, sapientes pudere cceperunt 
" eorum deorum, quos protulerant ferrea secula, ignorantia and tene- 
" bris tota devoluta. Omnia ideo, quse de diis fictitis, Jove scil : 
totoque sacro Helenismi choragio, vularo celebrata erant, res na- 
turales adumbrasse apud antiques UvdoAoym contenderunt. 
" Theolpgium banc Mv^iktsv vocant, quam nihil aliud fiiisse aiunt, 
quam nature doctrinam."f And in some passages after, he shews 
the vanity of this attempt. " Postquam enim evangelii lumen us- 
** que adeo radiis suis terrarum orbem perculisset, rubeescenda 
veteris superstitionis insania apud ipsum vulgus in contemptuni 
venerit, acutiores sophistss, qoud dixi, quo stultitiam istam co- 

* Ad. Hos. 2. 8. Referente Owen Theolog. pag. 189.—" For they thought 
** ihat the Deity was charmed with encomiums and titles heaped one above 
'* another, and received great honor from thence, so that at length those 
" different names, devised by superstition, by the progress of error, came to 
" be reckoned different deities. 

f Ubi supra pag. 196. — " But after philosophy began to be more seriously 
" cultivated, and more correct opinions concerning the divine nature had 
" taken place among the generality, the wise men began to be ashamed of 
" those gods, which had been invented in the iron ages, that were entirely in- 
*' volved in ignorance and darkness, and therefore they maintained that all 
** things that had been commonly reported of the fictitious gods, viz. Jupiter 
** and ail the hierarchy of Greece, signified only certain natural things in the 
" sense of the ancient Mythologists. And they called this Mythological Di- 
" vinity, which they said was nothing else thsn the knowledge of nature, 
" veiled bv allegor\ 

30 



234 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



«' lore novo fucatam, amabilem redderent, figmento huic (N. B.) 
" cui adversatur omiiis historiae fides, pertinacissime adliasserunt. 
« Imo, lit obiter dicam innovata est primis ecclesise temporibus 
" apud ipsos Gentiles, tota philosophandi ratio." Any one that 
would desire to see the folly of this observation exposed, on which 
our author lays so much stress, may peruse that chapter, whence 
these words are quoted.f Nor is this more than what Velleius 
speaks of Zeno a Stoick and others, "Cum Hesiodi 0ctfy«v<«v 
" interpretatur, tollit omnino, (N. B.) usitatas perceptasque, cog- 
" mtiones deoFum."J &c. 

But were this true, w^hich those quotations pretend, it will not 
yet come up to our author's purpose ; for these quotations tell us 
not that all the world were of this mind, but only the wise men ; 
and I fear that this too needs a restriction. Now this comes not 
near to the point. W hen our author has occasion to notice some 
absurd practices or opinions that are against him, he rejects them 
with this : " Quod a paucis solummodo superstitiose factum, non 
satis in religionem asserifur, Nos autem hand alia quam 
qncz Qinnes, vel plerique saltern coluere, sub religionis titulo po- 
" nimns.\\ Now let this be, as it is, the state of the question, and 
what some of the wiser did, is nothing at all to the purpose ; and 
this indeed is the point. In fine, we doubt not before we have 
done, from our author's own book, to demonstrate, that what he 
aims at in this observation, and consequently all the story of the 
wystick theology of the Heathens, is utterly inconsistent with all 
faith of history, which makes us as sure of this, as they can of 
any thing, that many nations, nay most nations, nay most wise men 
held a plurality of gods, even in the sense that our author would de- 
ny. The next observation hem akes, is a-kin to the former. He, fol- 
lowing Yossius, as he tells us, divides all the Gentiles' worship into 
proper^ symbolical and mixt.§ Proper is, when the true God, or 
the sun, or the moon is worshipped as the true God, and the wor- 

- * Ubi supra pag. 198. — For after the light of the g-ospel had so far en- 
*' lightened the world with its rays, that the shameful madness of the an- 
" cient superstition had fallen into contempt, even among the vulgar, the 
*' more acute sophists, as I said before in order to render that foolery amia- 
" ble, by giving it a new colour, adhered most obstinately to this fiction, 

though opposite to all the faith of history, nay, we may observe in passing, 
" that in the first ages of the church, the manner of philosoplaising anaong' 
*• the Heathens under\vent a total change." 

f Owen ubi eupra. Lib. 3. Cap. 6. 

4 Cicero de Nat. Door. -Lib. 1. — " When he interprets the Theogony of He- 
" siod he entirely overtui-ns altogether the usual and received traditions con- 
" cerning the gods." 

il De lielig. Gentil. pag. 12. — "What was done supers titiously by a few 

only, cannot be said to be a part of the general religion, but we place un- 
" der the title of religion no other things than tborse which all, or at least 
" the most part practised." 

§ Ibid, pag. 183. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 235 



ship is designed ultimately to terminate in their honor : Symbolic 
is, when the true God is worshipped in the sun, as an image, repre- 
sentation or symbol of him ; then the worship is not designed only, 
nor mainly to terminate on the sun, but on the true God. As for 
the mixt, we are not concerned to speak of it. He would every 
where have us to believe, that all their worship was symbolical, 
and as such he frequently seems to justify and avouch it as rea- 
sonable, which the Papists will readily thank him for ; and he ex- 
pressly asserts thisi, that all " their worship, save what was direct- 
ly addressed to the true God," which I believe was very little, 
" was symbolic." Atque cultum proprium mdkim faisse olim 
pcerterquam summi Deiy videtur,^ It is well that he expresses 
this position modestly, as being conscious how great ground others 
will see to judge otherwise. And the reason that follows, drawn 
from the alledged evidences of the thing, we shall have under con- 
sideration anon. But toward the close of this book, he calls them 
ignorantes, or sciolif that believe not as he believes in this matter. 

But it should be expected, that when he advances such a bold 
position, and is so hard on them that dissent from him, he would 
give good proof of it ; but if any expect that, he will fmd himself 
deceived. I find indeed a passage quoted with a high commenda- 
tion to this purpose. " Atque hie de cultu dei symholico preclar- 
" um locum ex Maximo Ti/rio, Dissert. 38. quern adducit Vos- 
" silts, supprimere non possum, Barbari omnes pariter Deum 
" esse intelligunt ; constituere interim sibi alia atque alia signa : 
" Ignem Persce imaginem qum unum duret diem, vorax quid 
" insatiabile, sic Maximi verba vertit Vossius.'^-f But what is 
all this to the purpose ? Doth this quotation from a Platonic phi- 
losopher, who lived an hundred and fifty years after Christ, when 
the gospel had overspread the whole world, and chased the Pagan 
darkness away, and made them ashamed of their old opinions, and 
improven reason, prove any thing ? To spend time on this, after 
what has been said above, Avere to trifle with a witness. The Deists 
have not, nor can they ever prove the truth of this bold assertion ; 
the falsehood of which we may detect before we have done. But 
hitherto our author has only used his shield ; we must next see 
whether his sword be not of better metal. All that has been 
hitherto said, is only a defensative for the Heathen's opinions and 

* De Relig". Gent. pag. 226. — " And there seems to have been no proper 
worship of old, except that of the Supreme God." 

t De Rel. Gent. pag. 70.—" And here I cannot suppress a famous place in 
" Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 38, which is quoted by Vossius. All the barbarians 
" believe equally that there is a God, but set up different signs or representa- 
" tions of him. For example, the Persians chuse fire, an imag-e that lasts 
" but one day, something- voracious and insatiable. Thus does Vossius ren- 

der the words of Maximus." 



236 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



practice : We must now see by what arguments he proves that 
hig first article did universally obtain. 

His first argument leans upon a few quotations from some Hea^ 
thens, who assert, that there is one Supreme Being, such as Hiero- 
cles, Zoroaster, and others, some of old and some of late. 

But all this is nothing to the purpose : For were there twenty 
times more who said so, this will not prove the point he is obliged 
to make good. He has undertaken to shew that it was not doubt- 
ed among wise or unwise, that there was one supreme Gody and he 
ike same whom ive adore. Now what is this to the purpose, to 
bring the opinions of a few learned men, without telling what were 
the opinions of the nations or times where they lived, or of the 
world at large ? It is not the question, What Seneca, Zoroaster, 
Plato, and twenty more, thought, nay what whole nations besides 
thought ? but, What the whole world thought in this matter ? 
This the argument touches not. 

His next argument is drawn from the confession of several di- 
vines. With this he begins his fifteenth chapter, and frequently 
speaks of it. But this says no more for him, than other, and per- 
haps more considerable testimonies, do against him. Besides, 
since he has not condescended on the persons who fall in with him 
here, nor their words, we must leave him ; as we are not concern- 
ed with them, nor obliged to follow them further, than they do the 
truth. 

But that which he lays the most stress on, is the supposed evi- 
dence of the tbing.^ This he frequently insists on, as to all his 
articles : and its force amounts to this — It is so clear that there is 
one only Supreme Being, and that the sun nor no other is he, that 
it could not escape the most dull and unthinking. 

But here our author puts me in mind of the companions of 
Christopher Columbus, who first discovered America, about the 
year 1592; they were one day at table with him, and began to 
depreciate and undervalue the discovery he had made, telling him 
how easily others might have done it. Well, says he, I hold you 
a wager, 1 do what none of you shall do, and presently calling for 
an egg, says he, none of you can make that egg stand straight on 
the table ; which when they had essayed to no purpose, he takes 
it, and crushes the end of it a little, and then it stood easily ; 
which, when they all said it was easy to do : W^ell, says he, it is 
very true, ye can do it after I have done it. It is easy to see 
things after they are discovered to our hand, which we would other- 
wise never have thought of All the world was not so discerning 
as our author was, and his followers pretended to be, and he has 
given us sufficient proof of that in his book, and I truly wonder 



^. De Relig. Gent, pag, 182, 166. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 237 

with what face any man could make use of this argument after he 
had read, much more after he had writ such a book, wherein it is 
made clear as the day, that many nations believed no other God 
but the sun, moon and stars, as we shall shew afterwards. And I 
must take the freedom to say, that our noble and learned author, 
with the rest of the Deists, and all the philosophers, who lived 
since the gospel obtained in the world, owe more to the Christian 
religion, than they have the ingenuity to own. What they think 
so clear, when revelation has not only taught them the truths, but 
the grounds of them, was dark not only to the vulgar, but to the 
wise of old. I cannot better conclude this, than by transcribing 
a passage of the ingenious Mr. Locke's Mssay on Human Under- 
standing — " Had you or I, (says he, speaking about innate ideas) 
" been born at the bay of Seldania, possibly our thoughts and no- 
" tions had not exceeded these brutish ones of the Hottentots that 
" inhabit there ; and had the Virginian king, Apochaiicana been 
« educated in England, he had, perhaps, been as knowing a di- 
" vine, and as good a mathematician as any in it. The difference 
" between him and a more improved Englishman, lying barely in 
" this, that the exercise of his faculties was bounded within the 
" ways, and modes and notions of his own country, and was never 

directed to any other or farther inquiries : And if he had not 
" any idea of a God as we have, it was only because he pursued 
" not those thoughts, that would certainly have led him to it." — 
Thus far Mr. Locke. If some men had been born where the gos- 
pel light has not come, they would have learned to talk more so- 
berly of the sufficiency of the light of nature. 

The only thing that remains for him to prove as to this first ar- 
ticle is, That this One Supreme God, whom he thinks the Gentiles 
all centered in, was the same God with him whom we worship. For 
this he refers us to three scriptures— Rom. i. 19. Acts x. through- 
out, and Acts xvii. 28, &c. 

Our author has not drawn any argument from those passages, but 
barely refers to them. He was particularly unlucky in quoting the 
last of them : For it obliged him to take notice of an argument 
arising obviously from the passage, against the purpose he adduced 
it for the proof of ; and indeed that passage affords several argu- 
ments against our author's opinion in this matter, which are not 
easy to be solved, if they who follow him, were to be determined 
by scripture arguments. But our noble author has scarce fairly 
laid the objection, which he started to himself from the altar to 
the unknown God. But to speak home to the purpose — There are 
only two things that can be drawn from these or the like passages. 
1 . That some of the Gentiles knerv the true God. 2. That all of 
them had some notions of truth concerning God, or which were 
pnly rightly applicable to the true God, The actings of conscience 



238 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



within, and the works of God without them, enforced on them the 
impression of some power, superior to themselves, on which they 
depended ; and this was indeed a notion of truth concerning God ; 
for this was only justly applicable to the true God : But yet they, 
through their darkness and wickedness, when they came to inquire 
more particularly after the true God, applied these notions to crea- 
tures, and took them for this true God. 

Now this is indeed all, besides bare and repeated assertions, that 
I can find in our author, to prove that his first article obtained uni- 
versally : And how far it is from proving this, is evident from what 
has been said. 

A R T I C L E 11. 

This One Supreme God is to be worshipped* 

The second article our author has not attempted a sufficient, 
aay, nor any separate proof of : Wherefore we go on to the next. 

ARTICLE III. 

That Virtue and Pieiy are the principal parts of the worship of 
this one true God, 

This he also pretends to have universally obtained, and that 
t!^ Gentiles expected not Heaven for their worship, or their sa- 
cred performances, but for their moral worship, that is, their vir- 
tues. To prove this, is the design of our author's 15th chapter, 
at least till page 195. 

The first thing he insists on to this purpose is, the high respect 
which the Heathens put on those things, while they ranked, mens, 
ratio, pietasy fides, pudicitia, spes and felicitas,^ amongst the 
number of their gods, and erected temples to them. This he 
proves at large. But what all this makes to his purpose, I am not 
yet satisfied. 

This indeed proves that they had a respect to all those things. 
Tery true, so they had, and that because of their usefulness in 
human society. Yea, this proves that they had an undue respect 
io them, so as to perform acts of worship to them. But that they 
designed to worship God by those virtues, which they would not 
allow they had from him, as we shall hear afterwards, is not so ea- 
sily proven. Besides, this was only at Rome that these altars 
were erected, and so is far from concluding as to the rest of the 
world, where virtue, hope, &c. had no such temples. 



* Mind, Reason, Piety, Faith^ Hope and Happiness 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 239 



The next thing our author mentions for proof of the universal 
reception of this article, is the custom of the Heathens in deifying 
their heroes on account of their virtues and piety. But our author 
knew too much of the Gentiles' religion to believe that this proves 
any more, than the fulsome flattery of the blinded world that dei- 
fied even devils, and, as our author elsewhere well observes, men 
that were no better than devils ; or if there was any more in this 
custom, when at first invented, it was only some ill applied piece 
of gratitude to persons, who had been their benefactors, or the 
benefactors of mankind. And all this respect, that was put on 
them was not because their virtues reflected any glory on God, 
but because they had been useful to men. Besides, religion was 
old in the world before this novel Grecian invention took place. — 
As the Roman poet and satyrist observed, 

nec turba deorum 

Talis, ut est hodie, contentaque sidera paucis 
Numinibus, miserum urgebant Atlanta minore 
Pondere.* 

• 

Nor did this universally obtain. So that the argument con- 
cludes just nothing. It neither proves that all the world were 
agreed that virtue and piety are the principal parts of the worship 
of God, nor that on account of these, men get eternal happiness. 
What their immortality was, of which they talked, we may see un- 
der the fifth article. 

Some few quotations from Cicero, Seneca, Plato, and one or two 
more compose our author's last argument. Seneca speaking some- 
where of Scipio Africanus says, " Animam quidem ejus in coe- 
lum, ex quo erat, redisse persuadeo, non quod magnos exercitus 
duxit (hos enim Cambyses furiosus, & furore feliciter usus habuit) 
sed ob egregiam moderationem, pietatemque. Cicero Lib. de 
Offic. Deos placates facit pietas & sanctitas." And elsewhere 
he says, " Nec est ulla erga deos pietas, nisi honesta de numine 
eorum ac mente opinio : Quum expeti nihil ab iis quod sit injus- 
tum, ac in honestum arbitrere."f Some others he adduces from 
Plato and others, wherein they say, that happiness and likeness to 
God are obtained by virtue. 

* " Nor was there such a multitude of gods, as there is now, and the 
stars being content with a few deities, pressed the poor Atlas with less 
" weight." 

■j- De Relig. Gentil. pag. 187 '* I am persuaded that his soul returned to 

that heaven from whence it came, not because he had great armies (for Cam- 
bysis who was a madman, and fortunate in his madness, had these too) but on 

account of his remarkable moderation and piety Piety and holiness 

appease the gods Xor is there any piety towards the gods, except an 

honorable opinion of their deity and mind, when one thinks that nothing un- 
just and dishonorable should be asked of them." 



240 



AN INftUIRY INTO THE 



But to what purpose are all these brought ? 1 . There are words 
here of gods, and their worship and piety as respecting them ; but 
not one word of the one true God, of whom alone we speak. 2. It 
is certain that this piety and sanctity according to those authors, 
comprehended the worship of their gods, as our author expressly 
confesses, " Atque ad pietatem consiimmatarn pliirima insuper 
(that is, besides virtue of which he speaks before) postulari aie- 
banfySed ea prcesertim quagrati in superos animi indicia essenf, 
putasacrificia, ritus Sr ceremonias hujusmodi alia ; quorum far- 
rago ingens fuit : Caterum sine prcEdidis divis sive deahus^animam 
regentibus, adltum in calnm nan dari.^^-f This last part is only 
our aulboi 's say, and is not reconcileable with what he tells us of 
their deiiyirig some, who were so far from being gods, that they 
were, says he, Ne viri quidem probi.% 3. As for what Cicero 
says, " That for virtue and piety we are advanced to heaven 
I do not know well how to reconcile it with what he says elsewhere 
in his book de Amicitia, " Vidt plane virtus honorem: nec virtu- 
tis est %dla alia merces,''^ otherwise than by thinking that by heaven, 
(his calum,) he meant, that which many of them meant by their 
immortaliti/, that is, an immortal fame, a good reputation after they 
are gone, amongst the survivors. As for Seneca, Christianity had 
taught him a little more, and his testimony is not much to be re- 
garded. 4. Were there twenty more of them, they never come 
near to a proof of the point : it is the sentiments of the world 
that we are inquiring after, and not what were the thoughts of some 
of the more improved philosophers. The question is not, Whe- 
ther men by the light of nature saw an excellency in virtue, and 
that it was to be followed ? but. Whether they looked on it as a 
part, a principal part of the worship, not of their deities, but of 
the one true God : and that for which heaven, not that imaginary 
heaven which men had at their disposal ; but an eternitij of happi- 
ness in communion with God, is to be obtained ? Now our author 
advances nothing to prove this point. 

.ARTICLE IV. 

We must repent when we do amiss. 

As to this article our author confesses several things, which it 
will be meet to notice in the entry. 1. He owns that the ancients, 



t De Kelig. Gen til pag. 185.—" And they said, that many other things 
besides were requisite in order to constitute perfect piety, but especially such 
things as were indications of a mind grateful to the gods, viz. sacrifices, 
rites, and ceremonies, and other things of this sort,, of wiiich there was a 
great nanr.ber, but that there was no access to heaven without the aforesaid 
gods and goddesses, who directed the soul." 

^ Fold, pag. 195.^ — *' Nor eren good men." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 241 



the wiser sort of them, thought not repentance a sufficient atone- 
ment for the grosser sort of sins ;^ and quotes Cicero, saying. Ex- 
piatio scelerum in homines nulla est.f Where God was offended 
they sought sanctuary in repentance, and thought it sufficient, but 
not where men were wronged. " CcEterum licet in remedium fee- 

catiyiibi DeiSummi majestas Icedereturfpcenitentiam sive doloreni 
" efficacem esse credereiit : Non ita tamen ubi homines injuria vet 
contumelii affiicarentur, de poenitentia ilia stahiehant Gentiles.'^ 
2. He confesses that they thought not, " Repentance alone a suf- 
ficient atonement." He tells us, that they had Expiationes lus- 
irationesque^ sine quihus neque criniine nequepaina solntos semetip- 
sos arhitrahantur .\\ Again, 3, He confesses that the word repen- 
tance or penitence^ was rarely used among the ancients, in that 
sense we use it. " Neque mihi dubium quin ^orum ( scil. peccato- 
*' rum J p(Bnituerit Gentiles, qu(B tot mala; arcessiverunt ; licet rarius 

quidem poenitenticB verbum inter aiitores, eo quo jam usurpatur 
" sensu reperiatur.^^'^ Since then he makes all these concessions, 
there remains no more save this, that he pretends all the " world 
*f were agreed upon repentance, as that which was of use to expiate, 
« at least, some lesser faults committed against God, and that we 
*^ should, when we sin, be grieved for it." 

To prove this, he quotes some passages from Ovid, Seneca and 
some others. The only considerable testimony is from Periander, 
who was one of the seven wise men of Greece-: One of whose 
sentences, he says it was A'f^cetpraiv Merccf^eXcv, oijH ay.c(,pr7ic-aiiy Te 

mal i pceaiteaf, ubi peccaveris. Seneca says, Quem pcenitet peccasse 
pene est innocens. And Ovid, 

Saepe levant pcenas, ereptaque lumina reddiint 
Quein bene peccati poenituisse vides.§ 

But all these are alleged to no purpose. They do not prove thai, 
repentance was looked on as an expiation by the Gentiles. Ovid 
and Seneca lived too late in the world, and had too great access to 
learn from others, to be much regarded in this matter ; but they 
only speak their own mind, and we have here no argument of the 

* De Rel. Gen.pa,^. 197. 

f Cicero de Leg. Lib. 1—-" There is no expiation of crimes against men." 
. ^ De Rel. Gent. pag. 198. — *' But although they thought that penitence or 
" sorrow was an effectual mean of taking away sin, whereby the majesty of the. 
" Supreme God was injured, yet they had not the same opinion of penitence, 
'* in regard to those sins whereby men were injured and insulted." 

II Ibid, pag, 195.— ** Expiations and lustrations, without which they did 
" not think themselves absolved either from crime or from punishment.'* 
** DeRel. Gent. pag. 198.— « Nor is it a doubt with me th.at the Gentiles 
*' repented of those crimes which brought so many evils upon them, although 
*' the word repentance, in that sense in which it is now used seldom occurs in, 

their authors.'* 

§ " You see that he who duly repents of hi^ ofl^nce- ^ft^n alleyiAte^s his ptfir- 
" ishjnent, and restores hi§ lost light.'* 
31 



AN ESat IRY INTO THfe 



agreement of the world as to any thing about repentance. The 
opinions of the wise are no just measure of the knowledge or ap- 
prehensions of the "VTilgar. 

But that whereon our author seems to lay more stress, is their sa- 
crifices, which he pretends are an evidence of their grief for sin, or 
repentance. Quorsvm enim nisi interno dolore perciti, tot riius sa- 
craque ad deos placandos excog^itassent .^1 

But, 1. If the Gentiles had been as much agreed about repen- 
tance as our author pretends, they would indeed have spared all 
this pains and cost. 2. They were indeed grieved^ but this grief 
they did not willingly entertain, nor allow themselves in as their 
dui?/ ; but looked upon it as their torment, and sought sanctuary 
in means proper for appeasing their gods, as they thought. 3. This 
grief, which sacrifices prove them to have had, is no more but that 
uneasy sense of sin in the conscience, which is a part of its pun- 
ishment, and no duty performed for their deliverance ; and this 
ioi ced them upon all ways that they could imagine to get rid of it ; 
€0 that sacrifices were what they betook themselves to, to save 
themselves, or procure a deliverance from our author's penitence. 
4. Further, our author, when it is for his purpose, can put another 
construction on their sacrifices ; while we have heard above, he 
makes them only absurd enough testimonies of gratitude to the 
gods, and to have no respect to sin at all. It is indeed true, that 
sometimes they were in this way used ; so Pythagoras' is said to 
have used them when he oiTered Hecatombs to the gods, for a pro- 
position which he found out ; but for ordinary, they were designed 
as expiatory. 5. Do their sacrifices, which they offered to so ma- 
ny gods, prove that they were troubled for offending the one tnie 
God.'' I believe not. Aye, but this is what our author should have 
proved. 6. Does our author tell us that they were so little agreed 
about this purgative, that no less a person than Piato discarded re- 
pentance, and put philosophy in its room, as that whereby only we 
^:oHld be purged ? And this leads me to a 7th thing, that shews of 
Jbow little signification this pretended proof is. That it is known 
that the more discerning philosophers made most light of those sa- 
crifices, yea of sin, and consequently of our author's Cathohc rem- 
4?dy, repentance. As to the sufficiency of repentance for the place 
he assigns it, we have spoken to it alcove. Our author, I think, 
has badly proven that it universaUy obtained. And indeed had 
ihere l^een as much weight laid on it as is pretended, we could not 
have missed a more large account of it in the writings of the Gen- 
tiles. Further, 8. Our author pretends, that repentance is of no 
avail, as to the grosser evils, but only washes away lesser sins, and 

= '* For to what purpose, unless they had been prompted by inward sorrow, 
would they have contrived so many rites and sacrifices for appeasing the 
:• pas ' 



PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 243 



we fear our author would find some difficulty to prove that gene- 
rally the Gentiles were so concerned for lesser sins, as he pre- 
tends. 9. Had they been so well agreed, as he pretends, about 
repentance, and had this been the design of their sacrifices, I do 
not well understand why our author should make such opposition 
betwixt sacrifices and repentance, as elsewhere he does ; when he 
is speaking of several faults of the Heathen priests, he subjoins — 
" Sed et hoc pejiis, quod quum ex vera mrtute, vel hinc ubi excide- 
rint ex pcBnitentia vera, pacem internam comparare debuissent, 
ad ritus Sr sacra, qiKz ipsi (Scil. Sacer dotes Jperagerent resper- 
" ducta est, <^rc."'* Here it would seem plain, that the people came 
at length, if not of their own accord, yet by the persuasion of the 
priests, to overlook repentance, and reject it, substituting other 
things in its room ; and when once this obtained in one generation, 
it is like it might spread and obtain in after ages, being transmitted 
from father to son, and the priests carrying on the cheat ; and so 
at least the world in all ages hath not made any account of repen- 
tance as the only expiation. Again, it would seem from our author, 
that sacrifices did not import, and were not evidences of repentance, 
but on the contrary, means invented to make people neglect it.f I 
do not well understand how they, who, if we may believe our au- 
thor, were all so fully agreed about repentance, and were so prone 
and inclined to it, that their minds run into it without any persua- 
sion, should need so much the priests' persuasion, and be easily 
drawn off from what they accounted so available. Let us hear our 
author. Speaking of man's recovery from sin, says he, " Atque 
" instaurationem kanc fieri debere ex painitentia, docuere turn philo^ 
" sophi, turn sacerdotes, ita ut hanc agendam animamque purifican- 
" duni, sed non sine eorum ministerio, sczpius inculcarcnt. Bene 
quidem, si pcenitentiarn satis populo persiiasissent, quod neuti- 
" quam tamem ab illis factum fiiit ; licet adeo prona in earn sit an- 
" ima humana, ut etiam nidlo suadente, in foro inlerno ex gratia 
" divina, conscicntice que dictamine decernatur.'^X Our author tells 
us, that the people's sacrifices were an argument of their repen- 
tance, as we heard above, and that the priests persuaded them to it, 
and that they were all agreed, that repentance was the only atone- 

* Del. Rel. Gent. paj^. 10.— But this too is worse, that when they ought to 
" have sought inward peace by true virtue, or when they had fallen from it, 
** by true penitence, the matter was reduced to rites and sacrifices performed 
" by the priests.'* 

f Ibid. pag. 197. 

i " And both the philosophers and the priests taught that this recovery 
** must be brought about by repentance, so that they often inculcated that 
" this ought to be done and the soul purified, but not without their mmistry. 
** It would have been well indeed if they had sufficiently persuaded the people 

to penitence, which however was not done by them, although the human 
*' mind is so prone to it, that even without any adviser, it is determmed in the 

inward coi|rt by the divine grace and the dictates of conscience." 



244 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



ment, and that the mind of man needs no admonisher to persuade 
it to repentance ; and yet he tells us likewise in the passages ad- 
duced, That repentance was quite laid by, sacrifices and rites put 
in its place, the people so ignorant of the worth of it as to let it go, 
and so backward as not to look after it, unless the priests had pres- 
sed it more, (and yet we are told they inculcated it oft) and in fine, 
the priests so negligent that they quite neglected their duty. How 
to knit all this together I know not. I do think it were easier lo 
make these words overthrow our author's argument, than to recon- 
cile them with themselres, with ti'uth, reason, or experience ; but I 
spare reflections that offer themselves. Before our author, or the 
l3eists, make any thing of this argument, they must prove, " That 
sacrifices universally obtained — That sacrifices were every where 
offered to the One True GOD— -That those sacrifices were sym- 
bolical of repentance," as another Deist has it, and several other 
things taken notice of above. 

A R T I C L E V. 

TJmt there are rewards and punishments after this Life. 

We are now come to our author's last article. He is not very 
constant in expressing himself about this article, and how far it was 
agreed to. Somxctimes he pretends, that these rewards were eter- 
nal happiness^ and that this was agreed ; sometimes only it was 
agi'eed that there were rewards and punishments after this life ; 
and sometimes he words it yet more modestly, that they expected 
rewards and punishments, either in this life, or after it. So page 
203, when he enters expressly to treat of this article, Et qiiidem 
pr(zmiiim bonis Sr suppliciiim malis, (N. B.J vel in hat vita, vel 
post ham vitam dari, statuebant Gentiles.^''^ 

And indeed when he comes to tell us how far it is determinable in 
this matter by the light of nature, he makes this article of very 
little signification. " Non imperite quidem, bonos, bona, malos ma- 
" la, vel in aeternum manere affirmabant veteres. At quis locum 
" prsemii, vel pcense ostenderit? — Quis supplicii genus conjectave- 
" rit ?" (And the same is perfectly the case as to rewards^ though 
our author waves that, for what cause it is not hard to conjecture.) 
" Quis tandem durationis terminum posuerit ?"f 

* " And indeed the Heathens were of opinion, that there would be a reward 
to the good, and a punishment to the wicked, either in this life or after 
" this life." 

I De Rellg- Gent. pag-. 210. — " The ancients indeed not unskilfully aiHrm- 
•'ed that g-cod things awaited the good, and evil the wicked, even for everc. 
But who could show the place of reward or punishment ? Who could guess 
the kind of punishment ? * ^ * -wtIiq at last can f x the term of theU* 
duration ? 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 24j 



All that he pretends to have been received, was barely this, 
" That there are rewards and punishments after this life." Let us 
hear himself, " Et quidem prseter solennem illam notitiam coramu- 
" nem, nempe, deum bonum justumq ; esse, adeoq ; premium vel 
pcenam turn in hac vita, turn post hanc vitam, pro actionibus, imo 
" & cogitationibus suis unicuique remetiri, nihil quod verisimile ma- 
" gis esset ab illis statui possee decernimus."^ But he tells us, 
that by the additions they made to this, and proceeding to deter- 
mine further than they knew, even this came to be called in ques- 
tion, (which, by the way, ruins our author's cause as to this arti- 
cle) but let himself speak, " Dum haec philosophi, ilia sacerdotes, 
" alia demum poetae adjicerent, tota inclinata in casuraq ; pronanu- 
" tavit veritatis fabrica. Si semet satis coercuissent Gentilium co- 
" riphaei, neminem, puto, dissentientem habuissent.f 

He asserts very little, we see, to have universally obtained as to 
this article, and he seems to do more than insinuate, that even, as to 
this little, at least, in process of time there were some, and even 
not a few dissenters : For I know not what meaning else to put up- 
on the " whole fabric of truth nodding," and " inclining to fall 
And this is to quit the cause. We shall however notice his argu- 
ments, but the more shortly, because of what has been already ob- 
served. 

First then, he pretends, that the persuasion of this is mnate,X 
that the reasons of it are so obvious, and the arguments leading to 
it are so evident, that they could not but agree as to this.Jj 

But I have already shown, that every thing that is evident, or 
was so to our author and his companions and followers, was not so 
to the ancient sages. I guess that he learned most of these argu- 
ments he insists on from some others than the Heathen philoso- 
phers, or if they managed them so well, he would have done right 
to have pointed us to the places where they have done so. But 
when he has done this it will not prove, an universal consent : For 
we are concerned in some other besides philosophers. As for what 
he pretends of this persuasion's being innate, I think he has said 
much to disprove it himself ; or if it be, I think the presages of 
future misery in the mind of man, have been much more strong 
than of happiness. And in a word, he only says it was innate, but 

* " And indeed besides that solemn common notice, that there is a God 
who is good and just, and consequently will reward and punish every one, 
" both in this life and after this life, according to his actions, and even — to 
*' his thoughts, we think that nothing more probable could be determined by 
" them." 

f " While the philosophers added some things, the priests others, and the 
*' poets others further, the whole fabric of truth was ruined and fell to the 
*' ground. If the leaders of the Heathens could have restrained themselves, 
** I think that th<-y would have had nobody differing from them." 
^ De Reg. Gent, page 211. |j Ibid, page 4. 



246 



AN maUIRY INTO THE 



does not prove it. Yea, if this did not universally obtain, accord- 
ing to our author's own doctrine, it was not innate. 

Next he insists on the custom of deifying heroeSy and placing 
them among the number of the immortal gods. This he hints at 
frequently. But this did not universally obtain as to time or place, 
and so hit not the point in the least. AH were not so dignified, nay, 
not all that were good ; nor does it prove, that even all that people, 
among whom this custom prevailed, were of that opinion ; but on- 
ly the persons principally concerned. And indeed it were easy to 
shew that they were not all of this opinion, which may possibly be 
made appear in the next chapter. 

His next argument is deduced from a few testimonies of poets 
and philosophers asserting a future state, which he has scattered 
up and down, here and there. But what is this to all the world ? 
Do the poets' fancies of Elysian fields, Sti/x and the like, give us 
the true measure of the sentiments of the world ? 

Thus I have viewed our author's proofs of his five articles, and 
their reception in the world. I have not knowingly omitted any 
thing of moment, advanced by him for his opinion. I shall con- 
clude this chapter with a few general reflections on our author's 
conduct in this affair. 

I do not a little suspect a writer of controversy, when he huddles 
up, and endeavors to conceal the state of the question, and shifts it 
upon occasion. It is always a sign either that his judgment is naught, 
or that his designs are not fair and good. I do not believe that our 
noble author's abilities required any such mean shifts, if the bad- 
ness of the cause he unhappily undertook, had not obliged him : 
But that this is the course he steers, is evident. Now he seems to 
undertake to shew us, what the most universal apprehensions of 
men were in matters of religion ; and anon, he pretends to tell us 
what the more discerning pei^sons, among the Heathens thought ; 
and thus shifts the scene, as it is for his purpose. 

It Is further remarkable, that our author has crammed in a great 
deal of philosophical learning, which makes nothing at all to the 
main purpose of the book. He has writ a book of 230 pages to 
prove that these five articles obtained ; whereas all the arguments 
he adduces, scarce take up ten of them. The rest is a collection 
of historical and philological learning about the Heathen gods and 
worship. He only drops here and there the shadow of an argu- 
meni ; and then when we are some pages by it, he tells us he has 
demonstrated this already, and we are referred back to some of 
the preceding arguments ; and that is, we are bid search for a nee- 
dle amongst a heap of hay. This looks exceeding suspicious 
like.* 



* Read the conclusion of our author's 8, Cap. pag-. 54. and compare it 
tvith the Cap. 



PRINCIPLES OP THE MOOERN DEISTS. 247 



Again, I do not like frequent and repeated assertions in a dis- 
putant without arguments. Fewer assertions and more arguments, 
if the cause had permitted, would have done better. It is said 
that some by telling a lie often over, come at length to believe it 
ta be true. I am apt to think that the oft asserting over and over 
again what he undertakes to prove, might go further toward hu3 
own conviction, than all the arguments that he has advanc^. 

Our author undertakes to give us an account what the Heathens' 
thoughts as to those articles were, and what led them to these ap- 
prehensions ; but after all, you shall find nothing but an account 
of some of their practices, with our author's glosses put on them, 
and the reason that, not they, but he thinks may be alleged in 
justification of their practices and opinions. If he had dealt fair- 
ly he would have told us in their own words, what their senti- 
ments were, and likewise what were their inducements that led 
them into those opinions ; but to obtrude, as every wliere he doth, 
his conjectures and strained interpretations, as their meaning, is 
perfectly intolerable. 

It is indeed true, that our author affords us several quotations 
from the Heathens ; but doth he, by this means, give us a fair 
representation of the point in controversy, and their sentiments 
about it ? No. If his reader is so simple as to take this for grant- 
ed, he deceives himself. I know it is the custom of some othei's, 
as well as our author, though perhaps on better designs, to quote 
some passages from Heathen authors, in order to shew their agree- 
ment with Christianity, and to wiiat a length the mere light of na- 
ture brought them ; but hereby they do deceive the reader : So 
Cicero's testimony to the immortality of the soul, is alleged by 
our author, pag. 19*2, " Qiiemadmodiim ig;itur haud alius Dens, 
" haud alia virtus, ah Gentilibus, quam ah nostris, olim celebra- 
" iiir, ila certe communis utriusque spes immortalitaiis fuit. Di- 
" sertim Cicero 2 de. Leg. ait, animi hominum sunt immortales : 
" Sed fortium honorum divini et alibi in Lib. de Senectufe ait : 

Non est lugenda mors, quum immortalitas consequitur."^ Now 
if any one should think that this testimony of Cicero gives a full 
account of his apprehensions about immortality, they would be 
very far deceived : For in his first book of Tuscidan Questions, 
where he discusses this point ex professo, he discovers indeed an 
inclination to believe it, and a desii^ that it may be true ; yet 
such a hesitation about it, that he knows not how to persuade him- 
self of it, as we shall show perhaps in the next chapter. In like 

* " As therefore there was no other God, nor any other virtue formerly 
" celebrated among the Gentiles than by our writers, so surely both of them 
" had a common hope of immortality ; for Cicero says expressly, 2d de Leg-i- 

bus, that the souls of men are immortal, and those of the brave and g-ood 
" are divine : and elsewhere in his book on Old Age he says, that death which 

immediately follows, is not to be mourned for."' 



248 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



manner Plato is cited by him, and many others to the same pur= 
pose : But what a sad uncertainty both Socrates and Plato were 
in about this point, I shall fuiiy demonstrate in the next chapter. 
I shall here set down only one notable instance of the unfairness of 
this way of procedure. Our author quotes Solon's testimony for 
future felicify, pag. 1 94. Let us hear our author's own words : 
" Pulchi'am cUstbictionem inter felicem sive fortunatem <§• beatiim 
" affert ex Soione Herodotus Lib. 1. TJhi Crodso respondens, ait 
" neminem digmim esse qui vocetur heatm antequam reXevnjc-ei 
" Tflv 3iov ev hoc est, vitam suam bene clauserit ; adeoque evrv^Tj 
" sive fortunatum hac in vita, nequaquam ^^oxfitov sive beatum 
" ante obitem ejus hominum appellari posse- Huic concinit Ovi- 
« diiiSf 

Diciq ; beatus 
Ante obltum nemo, supremaque funera, debet. 

" Proprie quippe loquendo, nemo beatus ante mortem : Ita id 
" beati inter Gentiles vocarentur, qui in Eli/siis campis sempiter- 
*• no (zva fruerentur.'^^ 

Now here we have a proof to the full of our author's conduct in 
his quotations, and the improvement of them. Was not Solon 
clear that there was a state of happiness after this life ? Who can 
doubt it, after our author has thus proved it ? But what if Solon 
for all this, confined happiness to this life, defining the happy man, 
" One who is competently furnished with outward things, acts 
honestly, and lives temperately;"! which definition no less a per- 
son than Aristotle approves. And in all Solon's speech to Cresus, 
there is not one word, if it were not disingenuously or ignorantly 
quoted, that gives us the least ground to believe that Solon once so 
much as dreamed of happiness after this life. Stanley in his life 
of Solon recites from Herodotus this whole* speech, and the story 
to which it relates. J Crossus, king of Lydia, in Asia the less, sends 
for Solon upon the fame of his wisdom. Solon comes. The vain 
king dazzled with the lustre of his own greatness, asked the wise 
Solon, Whether ever he saw any man happier than himself, who 
was possessed of so great riches and power ? Solon named sever- 
al, particularly Tellus the Athenian citizen, Cleobis and Bito, two 

* " Herodotus from Solon quotes a fine distinction betwixt a lucky or 
" fortunate and happy man, in his first book, when Solon answering Croesus, 
" says that nobody deserves to be called happy, till he has ended his life well, 
*' and consequently that althoug-h a man may be called lucky or fortunate in 

this life, but that he oug-ht not to be called happy before his death. And 
" Ovid agrees with him, "Xor ouglit any to be called happy before his death, 

and the last ceremony of his funeral." For properly speaking none is hap-' 

py before his death. vSo that those were called happy among the Gentiles 
" who enjoyed an eternal life in the Elvsian field?.*' " 

t Stanley's Life of Solon, page ^6. 

i Ibid, page i?Bj 59. 



iPRiNCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 249 

brothers ; the story of whom he relates to Crossus, and gives the 
reasons why he looked on them as happy, without ever a hint of 
their enjx^yino; any happiness after this life. At w hie h Croesus was 
angry thinking himself undervalued ; whereupon Solon thus ad- 
dresses him — " Do you inquire, Croesus, concerning human affairs 
" of me who, know that divine providence is severe, and full of 
" alteration ? In process of time, we see many things we would 
" not; we suffer many things we would not. Let us propose 
" seventy years as the term of man's life, which years consist of 
" 25,200 days, besides the additional month ; if we make one 
" year longer than another by that month, to make the time ac- 
" cord, the additional months belonging to those years will be 
thirty-five, and the days 1050, — whereof one is not in all things 
" like another. So that every man, O Croesus, is miserable ! You 
appear to me very rich, and are king over many ; but the ques- 
" tion you demand I cannot resolve, until I hear you have ended 
" your days happily ; he that hath much wealth is not happier 
" than he who gets his living from day to day, unless fortune con- 
" tinning all those good things to him, grant that he die w^ell. — 
" There are many men very rich, yet unfortunate ; many of mo- 
'* derate estates, fortunate ; of whom he who abounds in wealth, 
" and is not happy, exceeds the fortunate only in two things, the 
" other him in many ; the rich is more able to satisfy his desires, 
" and to overcome great injuries ; yet the fortunate excels him. — 
" He cannot indeed inflict hurt on others, and satisfy his own de- 
" sires ; his good fortune debars him of those : But he is free from 
" evils, healthful, happy in his children, and beautiful ; if to this, 
a man dies well, that is, he whom you seek, who deserves to be 
' called happy ; before death he cannot be stiled happy, but for- 
tunate ; yet for one man to obtain all this is impossible, as one 
country cannot furnish itself with all things : Some it hath, 
others it wants ; that which hath most is the best, so in men not 
one is perfect ; what one hath the other wants. He who hath 
" constantly most, and at last quietly departs this life, in my opin- 
" ion, O king, deserves to bear that name. In every thing we 
must have regard to the end, whither it tends ; for many to 
" whom God dispenseth all good fortunes, he at last utterly sub- 
" verts." Thus we see the whole passage, in which it is evident 
that Solon meant only, that to make a man happy, it is requisite he 
continue in the enjoyment of a competency till death, and that 
then he die well, that is, quietly and in good respect or credit witjji 
men. That this is the meaning of dying well according to Solon, 
is not only evident from the strain of the discourse, but from the 
stories of Tellus, Cleobis and Bito, whom he instances as happy 
men, because of their creditable deaths. The first he tells us died 
in defence of his coiintrv, after he had put his enemies to flight, 

ti2 



^50 



AN INQtJIRY INTO THE 



«' iie died nobly, and the Athenians burled him in the place where 
he fell, with much honor." The two brothers, Cleobis and Bito, 
drew^ their mother's chariot forty-five stadia, and with the stress 
died next morning in the temple, and so died honorably. And any 
that w ill give himself the trouble to read Ovid's story of Acteon, 
in his third book of his Metamorphosis will see it clear as the day, 
that he meant just the same* He represents how happy one might 
have thought Cadmus, considering how many things he had that 
w^ere desirable in his lot, a kingdom, relations, and children, had 
not Acteon his grand-child's fate interrupted the series of his joys, 
and made him miserable. Whereupon the poet concludes, " Till 
death a man cannot be called happy ;" that is, till a man has with- 
out interruption, enjoyed a tract of prosperity, and dies creditably, 
without any mixture of ill fortune. 

,Tam stabant Thebse : Poteras jam Cadme, videri 
Exilio leiix: Soceri tibi Marsque Venusque 
Contigerant : Hue adde g-enus de conjiige tanta. 
Tot natos, natasque, & pignora cara nepotes. 
Hos quoque jam juvenes : sed scilicet ultima semper 
Expectanda dies homini est, dicique beatus 
Ante obitum nemo, supremaque funera debet. 
Prima nepos inter res tot tibi, Cadme, secundas 
Causa fait luctus, &.C.* 

And thus he proceeds to tell the story of Acteon's being trans- 
formed into a hart. Thus we see with what candor our author 
quotes the Heathens. Here he has first broke off some words from 
their context, whereby the unwary reader is tempted to believe, 
that the speaker meant quite another thing than really he did ; and 
then obtrudes this false sense of one or two men's words, who 
were wise men, and in their thoughts far above the vulgar, as the 
harmonious meaning of the Gentile world. 

Nor do I think it strange that our author should serve us sO) seC'- 
ing he was prepossessed in favor of the Heathen's religion before 
he began to read their books. For he tells us in the entry of his 
book, the very first sentence of it, and more fully in the rest of the 
first chapter, That he was at once very concerned for the divine 
providencey and withal fully convinced that it could not be main- 
tained without there were a religion common to all men ; or, as 
his words formerly quoted by us express it, " unless every man 
w as provided with the means that were needful for attaining future 

* Ovid. Metamorpb. Lib. 3.~" And now Thebes was built ; now, O Cadmus, 
you might seem to be happy in your baiiishment. Mars and Venus were your 
lather and mother in law ; add to this, a race from so illustrious a consort, so 
inany sons and daughters, and grand-children, dear pledges, and these too al- 
ready youths ; but truly a man must always look for his last day, and nobody 
can be called liappy before his death, and' last funeral rites. Amidst so much 
iM'osperity, O Cadmus, a grandson was the first cause of mourning to you." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 



2j1 



happiness ;" so he went to the books of the Heathens under a 
persuasion that there was a common religion there, could he be so 
lucky as to light on it, and therefore no doubt he drew and strain- 
ed things to his purpose, both rites and words. Thus he begins 
his discourse about expiation : " Quosdam Gentilium ritus, qui in 
sensum saniorem trahi possunt, jam tractaturus,"'^ &c. And in- 
deed he draws them to a sounder sense than ever they put on 
them. But, after all, forced prai/ers are not good for the souly says 
the Scots proverb. And from one thus prepossessed, we can ex- 
pect no fair account of the Gentiles' sentiments. 

Which, by the way, gives me occasion to remark, that if any 
one desires to understand the mind of the Heathen philosophers 
and sages, they should read them themselves, or Heathens' accounts 
of their lives and actions, rather than those done by Christians ; 
because very often when Christians write their lives, they have 
some design, and they strain every thing in the philosophers to a 
compliance either with their designs or apprehensions. The Hea- 
then writers being under no influence from the scripture light, do 
plainly narrate things as they are, (not being so sensible of what 
things may reflect really upon the persons concerning whom they 
write ; the light of nature not representing clearly that w^ickedness 
which is in many of their actions and opinions) and scruple not to 
tell them out plainly : whereas Christians, being aware how odious 
such and such practices or principles are, dare scarce tell such 
things of those famous men, as they were really guilty of; because 
they know how deep a stain it will leave on them, by those who 
are taught the evil of them by the scriptures. 

I shall add this reflection more ; If any one would conclude from 
our author's confidence in some places of his book, where he talks 
of many reasons that he has advanced, and that he has demonstrat- 
ed this and that ; if, I say, from this they would infer, that he was 
fully persuaded in his own mind, about these five articles y that they 
iiniversally obtained, and are sufficient, he would very far mistake 
our author, who, throughout his book, sufllciently betrays his wi~ 
certainty about them, and that he wanted not a fear lest it should 
not be true, as some things afterwards to be pleaded will show. — 
But lest this should seem to be said altogether without ground, I 
shall single out one instance of our author's wavering in this mat- 
ter, reserving others to another occasion. It is page 19, where, 
after our author has discoursed of the more famous names of the 
true God, and showed that the Gentiles applied them all, save one, 
to the sun, he concludes thus, " Hsec saltern fuere solenniora 
Sumrai Dei nomina inter Hebrieos extantia, quae etiam ad solera. 



* De Rcl. Gent. pag-. 195.—-" Being now about to treat of some rites of the 
Hqathens", ^\ hich may be drawn into a sound seise.*' 



2y2 



AiSf INaUIRY INTO THE 



Sabazio excepto, a Gentillbus reducta fuisse, ex supra-allatis con* 
jecturam facere licet. Adeo ut quamvis superius sole numen sub 
hisce praesertim vocabulis coluerunt Hebrgei, solem neque aliud 
rumen intellexerunt Gentiles, nisi fortasse in sole, tanquam prae- 
claro Dei Summi specimine, & sensibili ejus, ut Plato vocat, simula- 
cro, Deum summura ab illis cultum fuisse censeas : Quod non facile 
abnuerim, praesertim cum symbolica fuerit omnis fere religio vete- 
rum."^ But perhaps though our author was not well confiruied in 
his opinion, when he began his book, yet he came to some more 
fixedness before he got to the end of it. Well, let us hear him, in 
his censure of the Gentiles' religion in the last chapter of his book, 
where speaking of the worshipping the heavens, the sun, &c. he 
gives his judgment thus : De hoc quidem dogmate, idem ac de 
priore censeo : Nempe, nisi symbolicus fuerit, erroneum mihi 
prorsus videtur esse cultum ilium, Cseterum quod symbolici fuerunt 
olim hujusraodi cultus, multae, quas supra adduximus, suadere vi- 
dentur rationes : Sed suo judicio heic quoque utatur lector."f — • 
What more uncertainty could any betray, than our author doth in. 
these words ? And indeed here we have enough to overthrow his 
whole book : for if this first article fall all will fall with it, as we may 
see afterwards. 

But it is now time that we draw to a conclusion of this chapter, 
having sufficiently enervated our author's arguments, so far as we 
could discern them. If any of them seem to be omitted, I presume 
they will be found to be of no great consideration, and of an easy 
despatch to any that is acquainted with this controversy. Our 
author's way of writing made it somewhat difficult to find his arga^ 
ments. And indeed upon serious reflection, I can scarce under- 
stand at what our author aimed in this way of writing. He could 
never rationally expect that this would clear the subject he had 
undertaken. I had almost concluded that his design behoved to 
be an ostentation of his krowledge of the Heathens* religion, in or 
der to make his ai;thority have the more weight, and to scare peop!c 

* De Rel. Gent. pag-. 19. — " Those at least were the more solemn names 
of the Supreme God, that we find among the Hebrews ; all which except Sa- 
bazhio, we may conjecture from what has been quoted above, was applied by 
the Gentiles to the sun. So that althoug-h the Hebrews worshipped a deity 
superior to the sun, especially under those names, yet the Gentiles imder- 
stood by them the sun and no other deity, unless perhaps in the sun, as an 
illustrious representation and sensible image, of the Supreme God, as Plata 
calls him, under which figure we may suppose that the Supreme God was 
worshipped by them. Which I would not easily contradict, especially as al- 
most all the religion of the ancients was symbolical.'* 

•j- Ibid, pag. 223.—" Concerning this doctrine indeed, I am of the same 
opinion as concerning the former, to wit, that unless that worship was symr 
bolical, it seems to me to have been quite erroneous. But the many reasons 
li hich we have adduced above, seem to persuade us to believe that worship 
of this kind of old was eymbolieal. But let the reader use his own judgment 
in this case likewise." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 253 



from entertaining a different opinion concerning the religion of the 
Heathen world, from that which one who had so industriously 
searched into their writings, owned. But if this was it, our au- 
thor has missed it. And I think instead of doing the Deists' 
cause any service this way, he has rather hurt it : for every one 
that shall peruse this work with attention, and find how great our 
author's learning, diligence and industry have been, and yet how 
little he has been able to do, they will infer the weakness of the 
cause he has undertaken, and conclude, that the cause could bear 
no better defence, and that therefore a weak and indefensible cause 
has baffled our author's great abilities and application. For 

si Pergama dexlra 

Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.* 

C. Blount and they who have come after our author, as has been 
«aid before, do but copy after him, and take his notions upon trust, 
but others will be §omewhat more wise, and will look whom they 
trust in a matter of this importance. 

CHAP. XV. 

Wherein it is made appear that Herberts Five Articles did no! 
iiniversaUy obtain, 

WE have in the preceeding chapter sufficiently showed how 
weak our noble author's proofs are of his universal religion. It 
now remains that we prove that what he pretends is indeed false. — 
Our work here is far more easy, than what our author undertook. 
He asserts that providence cannot be maintained, unless all man- 
kind are provided in the means needful for attaining future happi- 
ness, and he is likewise clear, that less cannot be allowed sufficient 
for this end than the five articles mentioned, wherefore he pretends 
that all the world agreed in owning these. Now to have made 
this last appear, it was needful it should be proven by induction of 
all particular nations, that they thus agreed, and that as to all times 
- — but this would have been somewhat too laborious. We main- 
tain that all did not agree in the acknowledgment of those five arti- 
cles : And this is evinced, if we can show only one nation dissent- 
ing from any one of them. But we shall not be so nice upon the 
point, as only to mention one nation, or disprove one article. Let 
us take a separate view of each article, and see what the judgment 
of some nations were concerning them. 

* — ^ —-If Troy could have been defended by any right hand, it would 

have been defended by this one.'* 



254 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



ARTICLE I. 

All the World did, not agree in owning the One True Supreme 

GOD. 

I MIGHT for proof of this, only desire any person to read our 
author's book, and there he would find this sufficiently clear. But 
I shall shortly confirm it to the conviction of any, who has not a 
mind to shut his eyes, by the few following observations as to the 
sentiments of the world in this case. 

1 . It is most evident to any one, who will give himself the trou- 
ble to read ever so little of the writings of the Gentiles, that ma- 
ny nations, I had almost said most nations, did hold a pluralUy of 
eternal and independent heingSy on whom they depended, and which 
they called geds in the properest sense of the word. Herodotus 
quoted by our author tells us, " That all the Africans worshiped 
*' the sun and moon only" — " Soli & lunse solummodo sacrificant,' 

& quidem Afri universi."^ And Plato quoted like^nse by our 
author, a few pages after, in his dialogue, which he calls Cratylus, 
teDs us, " Qui Grseciam primi incoluere, ii videntur mihi illos so- 
lum deos existimasse, quos nunc etiam barbari multi, pro diis ha- 
bent, solem, lunam, terram, astra, ccelum."f Of this also the an- 
cient inscriptions mentioned by our author,J and more particular- 
ly by Hornbeck in his treatise de Conversione Gentilium, is a proof. 
— " Soli invicto & lunse asternse deo soli invicto Mythrae & omnipo- 
" tenti, deo M}i;hrae."[| Mythras was a name given to the sun by 
the Persians, as our author proves. And if we may believe Maimo- 
iddes, the Sabeans owned no God save the stars. " Notum est 
" Abrahamum patrem nostrum educatum esse in fide Sabseorum, 

qui statuerunt nullum esse Deum, przeter stellas**^ Nor were 
the Egyptians of another mind. Diodorus's testimony is worth 
our notice to this purpose, — " Igitur primi illi homines olim in 
" ^gypto geniti, hinc mundi ornatum conspicientes, admirantes- 
" que universorum naturam, duos esse deos, & eos aeternos arbitra- 
" tri sunt, solem & lunam : Et ilium quidem Osiridem, banc Isidim 
" certa nominis ratione appellarunt."ff 

* De Rel. Gent, page 36. 

j" Ibid. pag. 39. — *' Those w ho first inhabited Greece, appear to me to have 
" thought that these alone were gods, which many barbarians still hold to be 
" gods, to wit, the sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, the heaven." 
t ± Ibid. pag. 26. |j Hornbeck, pag. 19. 

** More Xevochim, referente. Hornbec ubi supra, pag. 17. — "It is well 
*' know n that our father Abraham was educated in the faith of the Sabeans, 
*^ who tliought that there was no God except the stars." 

jf Owen Theolog. Lib. 3. Cap. 5. Herbert pag. 39.—" Therefore those first 
" men that were produced in Eg}-pt, observing from thence the beauty of the 
*•' world, and admiring the nature of the universe, concluded that tliere were 

two gods, tlie sun and the moon, and they called the one Osiris, and the 

other Tsi?, giving certain reasons for those names." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 255 



Thus we see what the apprehensions of several nations were, 
and how harmonious they are in dissenting from our author's asser- 
tion. It had been easy to have alledged many more testimonies 
even from our author against himself: But we aim at brevity. 

2. It is not improbable, that some nations, though they might al- 
low some priority of one of their gods to the rest, yet did not think 
that there was any such great inequality, at,least amongst their 
more notable deities, as could infer the supremacy of one to the 
rest, and their dependence on, and subordination to him. We find 
every where equal honors paid, and equal or very little different 
titles of respect given to the sun or moon. So that it is very likely, 
though they might give the sun the preference in point of order, 
yet they did not apprehend any such great inequality, as seems 
needful betwixt one supreme being and his dependents. The peo- 
ple of Mexico in America, though they worship many gods, yet 
look on their two principal ones, whom they call Vitsilopuchtli and 
Tescatlipuca, as two brothers. " Mexicani primo colere soUtifii- 

enmt immanem deorum turham^ his mille referunt, inter qiios 
" duo pracipui Vitzilopuchtli Sr Tescatlipuca duo fratres, quorum 

alter rerum providential^ alter bellis prceerat.'^^ And the inhab- 
itants of Darien, St. Martha and other places thereabouts, own only 
the sun, and the moon as his wife. Further, it is owned by our 
author several times, that many nations hold two first beings, one 
good and another evil, whom they call Ve- Jupiter, and by the Per- 
sian Magi he was called Arimanus. Though our author thinks a 
softer construction is to be put on their meaning, than to charge 
them with making their Ve- Jupiter equal with the good God :| 
But we know our author must not be allowed to interpret, unless he 
can give good grounds for his opinion about the meani?ig of the 
Gentiles, which in this case he doth not once attempt, and we know 
that some looked on this wicked principle as the supreme, as we 
shall show anon ; and I think it will be hard to clear some of them, 
yea even no less a person than Plutarch, from making them equal 
and both infinite ; if we may believe a late authoi', who tells us, 
" That as for Plutarch, one of the soberest of the philosophers, he 
" was the horridest Polytheistof them all ; for he asserts two Su- 
" preme Anti-gods ; one infinitely good, and the other infinitely 
" evil." J Moreover, some of the Deists do not think this opinion 
destitute of probability, as we have noted before. || But whatever 
there is as to this, yet, , 



* Hornbeck, pag. 70. — The Mexicans at first used to worship an immense 
" number of gods, to wit, two thousand, the chief among which v.ei-e Vitzi- 
" lopuchtU and Tezcatlipuca, two brothers, the one of whom had the care of 
" the world, and the other presided over wars." 

t De Relig. Gent. pag. 163. \ Nichol's Confer. Piurt 2. pag. 57. 

{| Oracles of Reason, pag. 194. 



2j6 



AN INdUIRY INTO THE 



3. It is certain that many of them, notwithstanding the hlige 
number of gods they maintained, were utterly ignorant of the true 
God, This is so evident, that I cannot but wonder at our author's 
impudence in denying it, especially, after the testimonies we have 
already quoted from him. We have heard already that the Egyp- 
tians and Grecians of old owned no other gods besides the suri, 
moon and stars. And we have heard the same of the Sabeans^ 
of several Americans and inhabitants of Africa ; and Csesar tells us 
the same of the Germans—" Deoruni numero eos solum dncunif 
" quos cernunt, & quorum opibus aperte juvantur, solem vuU 

canum & lunam ; reliquos ne fama quidem acceperunt.^*^ 
Yea, our author is forced to make a fair confession, and contradict 
himself in the entry of his fourth chapter, where speaking of the 
Gentiles and their worshipping of the sun, he delivers himself 
thus : " Incongruum demum existimaverunf, ut qui culhtm ah om- 
" nibus Jiagitarety a cultoribus suis sese absconderet Deus, So- 
^' lem igitnr Deum fere omnes Gentiles statnebnnt^ non summum 
" quideniy sed summo proximiim, ejusque prccdarissimam ico- 
■ " nem, licet alii, mundum tofum, tanquam Deo plenum, summi 
" Qidminis imaginem speciosam apprime prw se ferre contende- 
" rcnt.^'f Here you see our author positive, that they put not 
the sun in the room of the One true God : None of them did it ; 
but w^e shall hear him in the very next sentence tell us, that they 
did discard the true God, and very absurdly put another in his 
place. " Ccrfe uti olim dictum (says our author) qui solem vice 
" summi Dei cohierunt, perinde fecere, ac illi qui ad aulam po- 
^' tentissimi principis accedentes, quern primum amictu splendido 
" induium cernsrunf, regium illi cultum deferendum existimavei^- 
" unt.^^X And our author knows full well that at Athens there 
was an altar erected to the unknown God ; and Paul expressly 
tells them, that this unknown God, was the true God. Whom 
therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. What 
says our author to this ? He directly contradicts the apostle, and 
then makes him a compliment, that is well nigh to nonsense. Cse- 

* De Bello Gallico, Lib. 6. — " They reckon in the number of the gods only 
" those whom they see, and by whose power they are evidently assisted, 
*' that is the sun, the fire, and the moon. They have not so mucli as heard 
*' of the other gods." 

\ De Relig. Gent. pag. 20. — In fine, they reckoned it incongruous to sup- 
*' pose, that God, who required worship from all men, should hide himself 
" from his worshippers. Therefore almost rdl the Heathens thought that the 
" sun was a god ; not indeed the supreme one, but next to the supreme, and 
" his most illustrious image ; although others maintained that the whole 

world, as being full of God, bore a distinct impression of his image.'* 

\ "Surely, as was said long ago, those who worshipped the sun instead of. 
" the Supreme Deity, acted in the same manner as those who going to t' ; 
" court of a most powerful prince, should think that the first person the 
'* saw splendidly dressed wu>s the king, and to be reverenced as such." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 257 



*• terum (says he) duriuscule Deus ignotus x^theniensium ad De- 
" um Judaeorura refertiir : Ut ita priora S. S. loca Deiim Genti- 
lium eundum ac communcm omnium Deum evincant. Nam Dc- 
us ille ignotus Atheniensium alius certe fuit, (this is a plain con- 
tradiction to the apostle's assertion) atque ideo puto ara donatus, 
" ne aliquis forsan incultus apud illos esset Deus : Ut belle tamen 
hinc instruendi Gentiles occasionem captarit apostolus. Neque 
" dubium mihi est, quin e libro naturae edocti Deum Summum turn 
" agnoverint, turn coluerint Gentiles."^ Thus we see qiiam 
helle, how pleasantly our author proceeds. He tells us that it is 
hard to think, though the apostle expressly says so, that this itn- 
known God was the God of the Jews. But if we will not stand 
to our author's word, then he tells us what some scriptures he had 
formerly cited prove ; viz. Acts x. passim Acts xvii. 28, 29. 
Rom. i. 19. But we have above shewed, that these are not so for 
our author's purpose. Well, what then remains ? Nothing, but 
only this, " I have no doubt," says he, " but they knew the true 
" God." But our author's certainty will not satisfy another; and 
we just now shewed, that our author was not so fully sure as he 
pretends to be in this place. But yet our apostle, he tells us, 
took very handsomely occasion hence to instruct the Gentiles ; that 
is, if we believe our author, he took occasion from a false supposi- 
tion to instruct them. But it is a kindness that he used any com- 
pliment, though a ridiculous one. But leaving this, I go on. 

4. They among the nations, who owned One Supreme God, 
did frequently, if not for most part, put some others in the room 
of the True God. Some made the World God. This is what 
Balbus the Stoick sets up for with all his might in Cicero's second 
book de Nat, Deor. throughout. " Atqui certe nihil omnium re- 
" rum melius est, Mundo, nihil prsestabilius, nihil pulchrius : Nec 
" solum nihil est, nec excogitari quidem quicquam melius potest : Et 
^' si ratione & sapientia nihil est melius, necesse est hsec inesse eo, 
" quod optimum esse concedimus :"f And therefore a little after 
he concludes the World God. Cicero himself was of the same 



* " It was rather somewhat hard to refer the unknown God of the Atheni- 
" ans to the God of the Jews, as the former places of holy scripture prove 
" that the God of the Gentiles was the same with that of the Jews, and tlie 

common God of all men. For this unknown God of the Athenians was 
" certainly another one, and I suppose was honored with an altar for this rea- 

son, that no g-od perhaps might be without worship among them. Yet how 
** prettily does the apostle take an opportunity from hence of instructing the 

Gentiles. Nor is it doubiful with me, that the Gentiles, taught by the book 

of nature, both acknowledged and worshipped the Supreme God." 

t " And certainly none of all things is better than the World, nothing is 
" more excellent, nothhig is more beautiful ; and not only nothing exists, 
" but nothing can be imagined that is better than the World, And if nothing 
** is better than Rea.son and Wisdom, these qualities must necessarily be con- 
" ceived to belong" to that which we acknowledge to be the best of ail 

things." 

.*J3 



- D5ff AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



mind : For when Velleius the Epicurean had been heard and re^ 
futed by Cotta the Academic ; and Epicurus's wild opinions about 
the gods, had been fully exposed, which is the subject of the first 
book ; Balbus the Stoick proposes and defends the Stoicks' opin- 
ion about the nature, being, and number of the gods, and their 
providence, and defends it after the best manner he can, (where, 
by the way, there is not one word of the true God, but a full dis- 
covery of the grossest ignorance of him, and the greatest wicked- 
ness and folly in asserting a plurality of gods, and parting all the 
excellencies of the true God among them.) This makes up the 
second book. In the third book, Cotta the Academic, disputes 
against, and exposes the Stoicks' opinion, as defended by Balbus ; 
and in the last sentence of the book, Cicero gives his sTs-ncp* tcn^ or 
censure of the whole in these words, " Heec cum essent dicta, ita 

dicessinius, ut Velleo Cottse disputatio verior, mihi Balbi ad 
^ veritatis similitudinera videretur esse propensior."^ Velleius^ 
the Epicurean favours Cotta, who disproved the whole opinions 
about the gods, and put no better in their place. And Cicero 
was pleased with Balbus, who maintained the Stoicks' sentiments. 
What they were we have just now noted. And whether Plato, 
Aristotle, yea and Socrates were not of the same opinion, is not 
so very clear. Certain it is, that they paid a little too great re- 
spect to the world, if they were not. Let us hear our author. 
Plato in Timao et Legibus dicit 8c mundum deum esse codum 
astru, Src.-\ But whatever were their sentiments, it is not of so 
great consequence to the question under consideration, to spend 
time in inquiring,, since it is evident that many were of this opinion. 
Others thought that the heavefii was God, and this is owned by 
Ennius the poet, quoted by our author, in that noted verse so fre- 
quently mentioned by Cicero, Aspice hoc Sublime CandenSy quem 
omnes invoeant Jovem.'l And there also he tells us of an old in- 
scription found at Rome, Optimus 3Ia:cimus Ccelus ^ternus. 
Thus we see the heavens dignified with those very epithets, which 
our author pretends to have been peculiar to the Supreme God. 
And he tells us, that some are of opinion, that Pythagoras in- 
clined this way : and our author leaves it in doubt. If Aristotle 
and Plato were not of this mind, that the heavens were the Su- 
preme God, as we see some others were ; yet they did own hea- 
ven for God, and to be worshipped as such. " 8ed non solum- 

modi ccdum divino honore colendum decreverant sacerdotes, sed 
" et ipsi philosophi celebriores, adeo ut non Stj/garita tantum, sed 

* " when those things had been said, we parted, but so that the discourse 
" of Cotta seemed to Velleius to be nearer the truth, but that of Balbus seeni;. 
*' ed to me to approach more nearly to the likeness of truth." 

I De Relig-. Gent. pag.. 39. 

? Ibid, pag-v 54. 



PRINCIPLE.^ OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 2,^9 



" Emikis ejus prceceptor ita statuerinV^ Bat the most preva- 
" lent opinion was, that the sun was the one true and Supreme God. 
That many, and perhaps most nations thought so, the testimonies 
above alleged fully prove, and we have heard our author confes- 
sing it as to some. I shall only add a few remarks more to this 
purpose. There is a quotation of Macrobius, which I find in our 
author, that is worth noticing, " Assyri (inquit Macr.) quem Deura 
Summum Maximumq; venerantur, Adad noraen dederurit, ejus 
nominis interpraetatio significat umis. Hunc ergo ut potentis^- 
mum adorant Deum, sed subjungunt deam nomine Atergatin ; 
" omnemque potestatem hisce duobus attribuunt, solem terramque 
" inteliigentes.^'f And our author further acquaints us as to the 
Persians, " Quod Persse duo principia statuebant, Oromazen scil. 

tanquam boni fontem : Et Arimanium, mali. — Inter quos medi- 
" um & quasi arbitrum posuere solem."J I have in the close of 
our former chapter, quoted a notable passage from our author to 
the same purpose, wherein he tells us, that all the names of the true 
God, were ascribed to the sun. Of the same opinion were the 
Phaenicians, Britains of old, and their famed Druids, and perhaps 
most nations. Yea, so deeply did this fix its roots in the minds of 
most, that the greatestof the Heathen philosophers can scarcely be 
frcrd from an inclination this way.§ Plato tells us, how devout 
Socrates was in the worship of the sun, and that several times he 
fell into an extasy, while thus employed-jj Nor are the famous In- 
dian philosophers one whit more wise. " Not only the Brachmans, 
" but all the Indians, yea and the famed Appollonius (whom the 
" Heathens compared to our blessed Lord, most blasphemously 
" and groundlessly) worshipped the sun.*'*'^ And we have Ap- 
polloEius's prayer to the sun, recorded by Philostratus in his life, 
Lib. 1. O Summe sol, eo terrarum mitte, quo me profedurum esse 
cognescis, & concede, precor^ ut viros bonos, agnoscam; impro- 
bos vero neq; agnoscam, neq; agnoscar ab itlos.-ff Yea after the 

* De Reli.sr. Gent. pac^. 19.—" But not only were the priests of opinion that 

the heaven out^lit to be worshipped with divine honors, but also the most 
" famous philosophers, so that not only the Sta^yrite but his master before 
" him, was of that opinion." 

f Ibid. pa£^. 24.—" The Assyrians, says Macrobius, g-ave the name Adad, 
" which, sii^nifies one, to thgit Bein^ wliom they held to be the supreme and 
" greatest God. Therefore they adore him as' the most powerful God, but 
** they add to him a goddess named Atergates, and ascribe all power to these 
** two, meaning the sun and the earth." 

Ibid pag. 28.—" That the Persians hold two first principles, to wit, Aro- 
" mazes as the fountain of good, and Arimanius of evil, betwixt whom they 
** placed the sun in the middle, and as it were an arbiter." 

§ This is fiillv proven by Dr. Owen, Hornbeck and others, in their books 
formerly referred to. || See Owen's Theolog. Lib. 3. Cap. 4. pag. 182. 

** Hornbeck pag. 31. 

ft " .0 supreme "^sun, send me to that part of the world, to which you know 
" I am going, and grant, I pray, that I may know good men, b^t that I ma;-' 
neither kiiow bad men, nor be known by them-" 



260 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



light of the glorious gospel had cleared the philosopher's eyes, and 
Hiade them ashamed of much of their religion, yet even the' Pla- 
tonick philosophers ^could not quit the thoughts of the sun's being 
God."^ 

But not only did some look on the sun as the Supreme God ; 
but (if we may l)elieve Hornbeck, who was at great pains to under- 
stand the religions of the world, and particularly of America) se- 
veral nations in America, particularly the inhabitants of New- 
France, and they who inhabit about the river Sagadahoc, worship 
principally the devil or a malignant spirit-f 

Thus we have fully demonstrated what we undertook, and 
hereby quite spoiled the whole story of an universal religion : And 
our author has been so unhappy, as to lay to our hands many of 
the arguments, whereby we have disproved his own position. This 
step being once gained, we shall be more brief in the consideration 
of the remaining articles : For they all fall with this. If there is 
a mistake as to this, there can remain nothing sincere in religion. 
If the true God is not knomn, he cannot be worshipped, and re- 
wards and ptmishments cannot be expected from him ; nor can we 
be seEsibie of, or sorry for any offence done against him, So 
that we might stop here, as having ruined wholly that cause our 
author undertook to defend : But we shall consider the rest also. 

ARTICLE 11. 

It was not miiveTsally agreed that the One True God is to be wor- 
shipped. 

How could they agree as to the worshipping of him whom they 
did not kr.ov. to be ? If it would not frighten the persons concerned, 
I might here pertinently ask them the question the apostle puts, 
Rom. X. 14. How shall they call on him, in whom they have not 
believed^ And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have 
not heard ? 

And further, even they who owned one supreme God, many of 
them entertained such notions of him, as made him unworthy of 
any worship. He tells us that many of them locked him up in 
heaven, denying his providence ; and one would almost think our 
author had been of their opinion, while he tells us, " Hecte dictum 
est oliin, quod Sternum Bealum que est nec negotii quicquam ha- 
bere, ne exhiberi alter i^X whatever our author's thoughts 

* Owen ubi supra. Lib. 3. Cap, 5. pag*. 194. 
f Hornbeck de Conver. Gentil. Lib. 1. Cap. 9. pag. 70, 71. 
i De Relig. Gent. pag. 174. — " It was well said of old, that a being that 
is eternal and happy, neither has any trouble in itself, nor gives any trouble 

tc another.'* 



PRINCIPLES OF THE 3I0DERN DEISTS. 261 



were, it is well known, that this opinion prevailed very far, and 
obtained amongst many, if not most nations, who owned one su- 
preme God besides the sun. And they were further of opinion, 
that God had committed the whole management of the world to 
deputies. Our author informs us, that the ancient Heathens divid- 
ed their gods into super-celestial, celestial, and sub-celestial ;f and 
he tells us, that the chief god, and his companions the super-celes- 
tial gods, have not any such concernment in, or regard to the things 
that are transacted in this world, as to make them take any notice 
of them ; and that the Supreme God has withdrawn himself and 
the super-celestial gods from the view of mortals, as being of too 
sublime a nature to be known by them ; and that he has deputed 
the sun, moon, and stars to inspect the world, as the only gods 
who can be enjoyed by men. " Deum summum vero seipsum su- 
percoelestesq ; Deos a conspectu mortalium removisse, quod sub- 
limes adeo essent naturae, ut nulla eos acies, satis pertingeret, ejus 
loco non in conspectum solum, sed in fruitionem quandam produx- 
isse deos illos coelestes, qui a nobis sol, luna, coelum, &c. vocantur." J 
And the Indian Brachmins seem indeed to be of the same mind, as 
we know the whole followers of Epicurus were.|| Yea the inhabit- 
ants of Calicut, a kingdom in the East-Indies, are so absurd as to 
imagine that the devil is God's deputy, to whom the government 
of the world is committed. And hence they worship the devil 
principally, (as likewise do the kingdoms of Decum and Narsinga) 
and " their king has in his oratory the image of the devil with a 
crown on his head, so very frightful, that the most resolute tremble 
at the sight of it : the wall is all painted with lesser devils ; and in 
each corner stands one of brass, so well done, that it seems all in 
flames."** Now if such notions are entertained of God, it is no 
wonder though he be by many thought not worth the worshipping. 
The consequences of those apprehensions I cannot better express, 
than Cicero has done in the very beginning of his first book de A^af . 
Deorum. Sunt enim philosophi, & fuerunt, qui omnino nullam 
habere censerent humanarum rerum procurationem deos ; Quorum 
si vera sentensia est, quae potest esse pietas ? Quae sanctitas ? Qu£e 
religio ? si dii neque possunt nos juvare, nec volunt, nec curant 
omnino, nec quid agamus animadvertant ; nec est quod ab his ad 
hominum vitani permanare possit : Quod est, quod ullos diis im- 

f De Relig Gent. pag. 170. 

t Ibid, pag. 171.—" But that the supreme God had withdrawn himself and 
the other super -celestial gods from the sight of mortals, because they were of 
so sublime a nature that no human eye could sufficiently reach them ; but 
that he had set up in his place, not only for our knowledge, but fruition, those 
•elestial gods, which are called by us the sun, the moon, the heaven, &c." 

II Hopnbeck, page 40. 

** See Calicut, in Great. Geograph. Diction. 



262 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



mortalibus cultus, honores, preces adhibeamus And much 
more to the same purpose. Though he speaks of a plurality of 
gods, yet what he says holds true as to the case in hand : for if we. 
entertain, or if the Gentiles did entertain, as we see some of them 
did, such notions of their supreme God, as he here speaks of, the 
same consequences must follow ; and it is not credible that any, 
who thought so, could judge the Supreme God worthy of worship. 
And indeed we find them no way concerned about it. 

In fine not a few of the wiser, who entertained the most just 
thoughts of God of any, yet being in the dark as to the way of 
worshipping God, have declared against any worship, at least in 
practice, till it should by himself be condescended on. Thus it is 
as to the wiser sort among the Chinese — " De Deo eoque colendo 
non sunt soliciti. Unum quidem agnoscunt Sum mum Numen, a 
quo omnia conservari & regi credunt : Sed, quia quomodo coli 
velit, ignorare se profitentur ; satius autumant cultum ejus omit- 
tere, quam in eo designando errare."f And perhaps the best phi- 
losophers in other nations were not of a different mind. Thus we 
see how far they were from being agreed about this article. 

ARTICLE III. 

The Gentile W orld were not agreed in judging that Virtue and 
Piety are the principal parts of the worship of God. 

How it should come into our author's head to think that they 
were agreed, is a little strange, considering how little is to be found 
among their writers that looks this way. But I suppose the case 
was this, he had concluded that they were agreed about the being 
of One True God, and to make his religion complete he behoved to 
have them some way agreed about his worship too. But he found 
them endlessly divided about their solemn worship, and none of it 
directed to the one true God, but all expressly aimed at other 
things : wherefore there was no other thing left that could be to his 
purpose ; and therefore he finding that there was somewhat that 
all the world agreed in, paying some respect to, at least, in words, 

* '* For there are and have been philosophers, who think that the gods take 
ito care at all of human aJffairs, and if their opinion be true, what piety can 
there be ? or what sanctity ? whatrelig-ion ? if the gods neither can, nor will 
help us, nor observe what we do ; nor is there any thing that can come from 
them into human life. What reason is there then, why we should offer any 
worship, honors or prayers to the immortal gods ?" 

t Hornbeck ubi supra, pag. 47."—" They have no anxiety about God or his 
worship. They acknowledge indeed one Supreme Deity, by whom they think 
that all things are preserved and governed ; but as they profess that they do 
not know in what manner he chases to be worshipped, they think it better to 
let alone his worship altogether, than to err in determining it." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, 263 



under the name of virtue ; he would needs appropriate this to the 
True God for his worship, though he has no warrant from the Gen- 
tiles to do so. And truly after all, if this was the worsliip of the 
True God, or designed as such, whatever agreement there might be 
in opinion about the worship of the one True God, I think there 
was none in practice, if not in a total neglect of it : For how few 
were there, who can have the least pretence to challenge that name 
amongst all those, whose names have been transmitted to us ! How 
true was the poet Juvenal's observation, 

llari quippe boni, numero vix sunt totidem quot 
Thebarum porta;, divitis vel ostia Nili.* 

But to leave this, and come to the point in hand somewhat more 
closely, 

1. It is evident that the world was very far from being agreed, 
that there is One God : Far more were they divided about the acj- 
knowledgment of the True God, and whom they should own as 
such. It was therefore utterly impossible that they should conde- 
scend on this, as a principal part of the worship of God, whom 
they did not know to have any being. 

2. So far were they from looking on virtue as the principal part 
of the worship of the gods, whom they owned, that the worship of 
many of their gods, was thought to consist in things that were 
cross to the plainest dictates of nature's light. Our author ac- 
quaints us frequently with the obscenities, the cruelties, and other 
extravagancies of their worship. The obscenities are too fulsome 
to be repeated. The furious extravagancies, religious, or rather 
superstitious fury and madness used in the worship of Bacchus, 
are known to every one. And for their cruelty, who knows not 
that human sacrifices were almost universally used ? Some offered 
captives, some offered strangers, some sacrificed their dearest rela- 
tions and children, and that in the most cruel manner.f 

3. We need go no further than our author's book, to learn, that 
most nations were so far from looking on virtue as any part of the 
worship due to any of those gods they owned, that they placed it 
wholly in such other things, as our author, amongst others, has 
given us a large account of. 

4. They, who were most zealous for virtue, were very far from 
looking on it as a part of the worship of God, or directing it to his 
glory. I believe our author, were he alive, for all his reading 
would find it diflScult to find one fair testimony to this purpose. 

* ** For good men are rare, and scarcely as numerous as the gates of The- 
bes, or tlie 'mouths of the fertile Nile." 

t See this fully proven in the learned and excellent Dr. Owen's treatise 
Justitia vindicatrice y frompag". 66 to 100, by authentic testimonies, with such 
remarks as may be worth the rcadmg. 



W4 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



They looked not on themselves as debtors to God for Uieir virtue. 
Hence Cotta, after he has acknowledged that we are indebted tQ 
God for our riches and eternal enjoyments, adds ; " Virtutem au- 
tem nemo unquam acceptam Deo retulit, nimirum recte : Propter 
virtutem enim laudamur, & in virtute recte gloriamur ; quod non 
contingeret, si id donum a Deo haberemus." Hence a little after, 
he adds, " Nam quis quod bonus vir esset, gratias diis egit un- 
quam 1"=^ And much more to the same purpose. They thought 
that their virtue made them equal to their gods. " Hoc est quod 
philosophia mihi promittit, ut me parem Deo faciat."f Yea not 
only so, but they pretended thehr virtues placed them above their 
gods. " Est aliquid, quo sapiens antecedat deum, ille naturaae 
beneficio, non suo, sapiens est." J And again, " Deus non vincit 
srapientem felicitate, etiamsi vincit aetate : Non enim est virtus ma- 
jor, quae longior.''|l Hence they will not have us so much as to 
pray to God, either as to virtue or felicity. It is a mean thing to 
weary the gods. " Quid votis epus est ? facto felicem,^'^^ And 
much more to the same purpose. 

ARTICLE IV. 

ft did not universally obtain, that repentance is a sufficient expia- 
tion ; or, that we must repent for offences done against the true 
God. 

Our author has acknowledged, that there is rarely mention of 
this amongst the ancients ; and we have already, by quotations 
from him, cleared that the ancient Heathens did not think it a 
sufficient expiation, and indeed that it was of no great considera- 
tion among them, is sufficiently evident from their not taking any 
notice of it, even when the fairest occasions present themselves. 
And finally, there can be nothing more certain, than that their re~ 
pentance could not aim at the offence done to the true God, of 
whom many of them were utterly ignorant. But what has been 
feaid is sufficient to show that it did not universally obtain in any 
sense, that can turn to any account to the Deists. 

* Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. mihi. 187. Lib. 3.—'* For nobody ever confessed 
that he owed his virtue to God, for we are justly praised on account of our 
virtue, and we justly boast of it, which would not be the case if we had our 

virtue as a gift from God Nor did any body ever give thanks to the gods 

because he was a good man.'* 

t Seneca, Epist. 48. — This is what philosophy promises me, to make me 
equal to God." 

+ Idem, Epist. 53.—" There is something in which a wise man excels God, 
that the former is wise by his own benefit, but the latter by that of nature." 

\\ Epist. 73. — " God does not exceed a wise man in happiness, though he 
exceeds him in age, for virtue is not the greater in proportion as it is older."- 

** Epist. 51.—" What need has he of prayers who is actually happy." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 285 



ARTICLE V. 

It was not universalli/ agreed, that there are Rewards and Punish- 
ments after this life. 

I . However many there were that maintained the immortality 
of the souls of men, it is certain, that there were very many dis- 
sentients, who were of a different mind, and that of all sorts of 
people. 

The famed sects among the Indians, which they call Schaerwae- 
ska, Pasenda and Tschedea, if we may believe Hornbeck in his 
account of them, all deny a future state.* 

Nor are the wise Chinese, at least many of them, of a different 
mind. They are divided into three sects. Thefirst sect of their 
philosophers are the followers of the famed Confucius ; their mo- 
rals are as refined as perhaps these of the most polite parts of the 
world, if not more. But as to the soul, they seem to make it a 
part of God, which at death returns to that first Principle, whence 
it was broke off. Let us hear Possevinus's account of them. As 
to this matter he says, they maintain, " Hominis cor esse unam & 
" eandem rem cum illo primo rerum principio ; cumque homo mori- 
" tur, cor perire prorsus & absumi, superesse tamen ex eo primum 
" principium, quod vitam ante confcrebat." And further, they 
maintain, " Posse hominem in hac vita summam principli cogno- 
" scendiperfectionem adipisci,& meditando pervenire ad maxlmam 
" vitse tranquillitatem, & hoc esse summum bonum, quod donee 
" obtineat, continuo motu agatur, & de inferno uno in alium conji- 
" ciatur, usque dum contemplando & meditando ad fastigium per- 
" venerlt tranquillitatis, qua3 in principio illo primo est."f These 
are the apprehensions of their best moralists. 

But there are two other sects, that plainly declare against a fu- 
ture state, and the immortality of the soul, and have no prot- 
pect beyond time.J 

Of this same opinion were not only single persons, but many 
sects of the ancient philosophers, whom Cicero mentions, and con- 
ludes his account of them thus — " His sententiis omnibus nihil post 

mortem pertinere ad quemquam potest : Pariter enim cum vita 

* Hornbeck, pag. 34, ubi supra. 

f Hornbeck, pag. 47, 48.—" That the heart of man is one and the same 
" thing- with that first Principle of thing's, and that when a man dies, his heart 
" quite perishes and is consumed, yet that the first Principle of it remains, 
" which formerly gave him life. * » * That a man may in this life 
" attain to the highest perfection of the principle of knowledge, and arrive 

by meditation to the greatest tranquillity of life, and that until he obtain. 
*' this, he is agitated by a perpetual motion, and thrown from one hell into 
" another, till by contemplation and meditation he arrive at the summit of 
** tranquillity which is in that first Principle." 

i Ibid. pag. 43, 49. 

34 



266 



AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 



" sensus amittitur."'^ And a little after, speaking of the oppositioB 
made to Plato's opinion about the immortality of the soul, he says, 
" Sed plurimi contra (Platonis scil. sententiam) nituntur, animosq ; 
" quasi capite damnatos morte mulctant." And some passages af- 
ter, speaking of the same opinion, he says, " Catervje veniunt con- 
" tradicentium, non solum Epicureorum, quos equidem non despi- 
" cio, sed nescio quomodo doctissimus quisque contemnit. Acer- 
" rime autem delicise mese, dico Archias, contra banc immortalita- 
" tern disseruit : Is enim tres libros scripsit, qui Lesbiaci vocan- 
" tur, quod Metyienis sermo habetur : In quibus vult efficere ani- 
" imos esse mortales : Stoici autem usuram nobis tanquam corni- 
" cibus : Diu mansuros aiunt animos, semper negant."f 

Nor were they otherwise minded, many of them in Greece* 
When Socrates vents his opinion of the immortality of the soul 
that day before he died, Cebes, one of his disciples, who is the 
conferrer, or one of them at least that maintains the discourse with 
him, addresses him in these words : " Socrates, I subscribe to the 
" truth of all you have said. There is only one thing that men 
" look upon as incredible, viz. what you advanced of the soul : for 
" almost every body fancies, that when the soul parts from the bo- 
" dy it is no more, it dies along with it ; in the very minute of 
" parting it vanishes like a vapour or smoke, which flies off and 
" disperses, and has no existence."J 
100.^ 

Yea, Pliny, Strabo, and many others, declare against the immor- 
tality of the soul ; nav, Pliny on set purpose disputes against 
it.!i 

And the poets go the same way. It were easy to multiply proofs 
of this from them. Seneca speaks the mind of many of them, though 
perhaps not his own. TrajcR Troa, A, 1. 

Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil. 
Velocis spatii meta novissima. 
Quxris quo jaceas post obitum loco ? 

Quo non mala jacent. Et 
Tempus nos avidum devorat & chaos. 



* Cicero, Tusc. Quest, l.pag. 329.--*' From all these opinions, nothing- after 
" death can be interestmg: to any one, for sensation is lost together with 
life." 

t " Crowds of opposers come against me, not only of the Epicureans, whom 
*' indeed I do not despise, but I know not how every most learned man despi- 
" ses them. For my darling-, I mean Archais, has disputed very eagerly against 
*' this immortality. He wrote three books, which are called Lesbian, because 
*' the discourse is held at Mytelene, in which he endeavored to prove that the 
** souls of men are mortal. But the Stoicks only give them a long life like the 
" crows— they say that souls will live a long time, but they deny that they 

will live for ever." 

± Plato's Phedon done into English from M. Dacier's Trans, vol. 2. page 100- 
11 Oweni Theolog. Lib. 1. C. pag. 174. " 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 267 



Mors individua est, noxia corporl, 
Nec parcens animse.* 

Persius and all the poets made use of this as an encouragement 
to give way to themselves, in whatever lust prompted them to. 

Indulge g-enio, carpamus dulcia ; nostrum est 
Quod vivis, cinis, & manes, & tabula fies.§ 

If it be said that this is an irony, and that he was not in earnest, 
it is easy to multiply quotations to this purpose from Horace, Ca- 
tullus, and most of the poets, which are not capable of any such 
construction. But I forbear. 

And although Cicero was for the immortality of the soul ; yet 
in his first book of Tnscnlan Questions, he plainly derides the 
whole business of rewards and punishments after this life ; as any 
one who will attentively peruse it may see. I forbear to transcribe 
the passage ; because I behoved to transcribe much to shew the 
tendency of the discourse. He plainly tells us, that he could be 
eloquent, if he had a mind to speak against those things ; Diser- 
Ins esse possum, si contra ista cUcerem.\\ The case is plainly this : 
That person to whom he discourses looks on death as an evil. Ci- 
cero tells him that perhaps it is because he fears those punishments 
after this life, which the vulgar believed ; and after he has tartly 
ridiculed them, he concludes, That had he a mind, he could en- 
large against those things, and plainly expose the whole tradition. 

But because some talk' so much of Plato, Socrates, Cicero, and 
we get so many quotations from them about the immortality of the 
soul and a future state ; I shall here represent their own opinion 
somewhat more fully. 

As for Socrates, he has not writ any thing that is come to our 
hands ; all the accounts we have of him are from Plato, Xenophon 
and others, but especially Plato his scholar, who was with him at 
his death : From him then we shall learn at once, what both his 
master's opinion and his own were in this matter. 

When Socrates is making his apology before his judges, he tells 
them, " That to fear death, is nothing else, but to believe one*8 
" self to be wise, when they are not ; and to fancy that they know 

what they do not know. In effect, nobody knows death ; no bo- 
" dy can tell, but it may be the greatest benefit of mankind ; and 



* '* There is nothing after death, and death itself is nothing, being only the 
** last stage of our swift course. Do you ask in what place you are to lie af- 
** ter death ? In that place evils do not lie, and greedy time and chance devours 
*' us. Death is a divider, which hurts the body and does not spare the soul." 

§ " Indulge your inclination, let us enjoy pleasures ; this span of life th^t 
" we enjoy is ours, you will soon become ashes, a shade and a fable." 

!! Tuscul. Quest. Lib. 1> a little from the beginning, pag. mihi 312. 



268 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



« yet men are afraid of it, as if they knew certainly that it was the 
«' greatest of evils."* And a little after, speaking of death, 

What ! should I be afraid of the punishment adjudged by Meli- 
" tus, a punishment I cannot possitively say whether it is good or 
*' evil ?"t thus he concludes his apology. " But now, it is 

" true we should all retire to our respective offices, you to live, and 
" I to die. But whether you or I are going upon the better expe- 
" dition, it is known to none, but God alone." J 

Again, in that famed discourse on this subject, before his death, 
after he has produced all the arguments he can for the immortality 
of the soul, he tells us pretty plainly, how things stood with hira. 
*' Convincing the audience of what I advance, is not only my aim ; 

indeed I shall be infinitely glad that it come to pass ; but my 
*' chief scope is to persuade myself of the truth of these things ; 
" for I argue thus, my dear Phedon, and you will find that this 

way of arguing is highly useful, (very true to folk that are not 
" certain and can do no better, and only to these.) If my pro- 

positions prove true, it is well done to believe them, and if after 

my death they be found false, I will reap that advantage in this 
** life, that I have been less afflicted by the evils which commonly 

accompany it. But I shall not remain long under this ignorance."|| 
And when he is near his close, and just about to take the poison, 
or a little before, having represented his thoughts about rewards 
and punishments after this life, which are little better than those of 
the poets, he concludes his account in these words ; " No man of 

sense can pretend to assure you, that all these things are just as 
** you have heard. But all thinking men will be positive, that the 
" state of the soul, and the place of its abode, is absolutely such 

as I represent it to be, or at least very near it," — provided the 
soul be immortal. 

More might be alledged to the same purpose ; but this is suffi- 
cient to let us see how wavering Plato and his master Socrates 
were. They talk confidently sometimes ; but presently they sink 
again. Let us next see what Cicero's mind was. He treats this 
subject on set purpose, in his first book of Tusculan Questions, 
which is wholly spent on this subject. He undertakes to shew 
and prove against the person whom he instructs, that death is not 
an evil, whether we are dissolved quite or not : and having, as h© 
fancies, proven that death is not an evil, he proceeds, and gives us 
this account of his undertaking : — " I shall teach you, (speaking of 
^' death) if I can, si possim, ihst it is not only 7iot anevil^, but a 
good.^^^^^ But a little after he tells us clearly what V7e may expect 



* Dacier's Plato, Vol. 2. page 28. Socrates' ApoIog}v 
f Ibid, pag-e 40. + Ibid, pag-e 47. 

11 Plato's Phedon, page 135, 136, 
Pa^e 325, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 269 



from him, when his hearer exhorts him to go on ; says he, Geram 
tibi morem, Sr ea qucz vis, ut poterOy explicabo : Nec tamea quasi 
Pi/thius Apollo, certa ut sint, fixa, qua dixero : Sed ut komun- 
culus Wilis e multis probabilia conjectura sequens, ultra enim quo 
progrediar, quam ut verislmilia videam, non habeo : Certa dicent 
ii qui Sr percipi ea posse dicunt, ^ se sapientes esse projiientur.^ 
And speaking about this opinion, bis auditor tells him, how plea- 
sant this is to him. It will be a little pleasant to hear them speak. 
A. Me vero deledat : Idque primum ita esse C soil, animos esse 
immortales : ) Deinde etiainsi non sit, mihi tamen perfuaderi vet- 
im. 31. Quid tibi ergo opera nostra opus est ? Num eloquentia 
Platonein superare possuwus ? Evolve diligenter ejus eum lib- 
rum, qui est de ammo : Amplius quod desideres nihil erit. A. Fe- 
ci, mehercule, Sr quiderj^ sapius : Sed, nescio quomodo, dum lego, 
assentior : Cum. posui librum, Sc mecum. ipse de immortalitate 
animorum cczpi cogitare, asseiitio omnis ilia elabitur.f After he 
has instructed his hearer, his hearer professes his resolution to stand 
by this opinion ; but gets a caution from his instructor, that lets us 
see how things stand. A, Nemo me de immortalitate depellet. 
M. answers, Laudo id quidem, etsi nihil nimis oportet confidere ; 
Movemur enim s(tpe aliquo acute concluso : Labamus mutamus- 
que sententiam clnrioribus etiam in rebus : In his enim est aliqua 
obscuritas.'l And if ye would know what his reason was for in- 
sisting so long on the proof of this, he tells us near the close. 
That it was to banish the contrary suspicion, which was trouble- 
some. Much more might be adduced, but what has been said 
sufficiently demonstrates how fluctuating and uncertain the best of 
them were, in reference to this important point. 

If any shall say, that though these great men upon some occa- 
sions, express themselves with some hesitation, and did insinuate 

* Pacr. 326. — " ^. I will obey you, and explain these things that you wish, 
** as I shall be able. Yet what I am to say will not be certain and fixed like 
** the oracles of the Pythian Apollo, but I will proceed as one poor man of the 

many, following- probabilities by conjecture, for I have no where that I can 
** go further than I see probability. Those will say certain things who say 
*' that certainty can be obtained, and who profess to be wise men." 

f Pag. 329.—" ^. But it pleases me, and this first, that so is the case, (to 
** wit, that the souls of men are immortal) and then although it should not 

be so, yet I wish to be persuaded of it. JI. What need have you then of 
** our service ? (Jan we excel Plato in eloquence ? Turn over diligently that 
** book of his, which treats of the soul, you will desire nothing more on the 
** subject. ?. Indeed I have done so, and oftener than once, but I know not 
** how it is, I assent as long as I am reading, but when I have laid down the 
" book and begin to think with myself of "the immortality of souls, all that 
** assent vanishes." 

^ " None shall drive me from my belief of immortality. M. I commend 
** that indeed, although we ought not'to be too confident of any thing, for we are 
** often determined by something that is acutely concluded ; yet afterwards 
•* we give way and change our opinions even in things that are clearer, for 
there is some obscurity in those things." 



270 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



some suspicion that the opposite part of the question might be 
true, yet upon other occasions they are positive, and that this is 
as good an evidence of their being firmly persuaded, as the other 
expressions are of their hesitation. I answer, the consequence is 
naught. A seeming positive ness upon some occasions, may be the 
result of a joint influence of a strong desire, that the thing should 
be true, and some philosophical quirk urged for its support : For 
as Cicero well observes in the words last quoted, Movemur soepe 
aliquo acute concluso ; and this especially holds true, where there 
is a strong inclination to believe the thing, as being of obvious ad- 
vantage to us. Now this may be, where there is no certainty or 
firm persuasion. I readily own that these great men favored the 
immortality of the soul : But I positively deny, that they receiv- 
ed it with that firmness of assent, that is npt only due, but una- 
voidable, to truths which carry their own evidence along with 
them. And I moreover aver, that the Deists, in quoting some of 
these assertions from them, wherein they seem positive, suppres- 
sing other expressions, wherein they discover a hesitation, do but 
abuse the reader's credulity ; and give neither a full nor fair ac» 
count of the judgment of these men. 



CHAP. XVI. 

Wherein some general considerations are laid down for proving 
that man?/ of the best things which are to he met with in the Hea- 
thens, were not the discoveries of Nature^ s Light, hut came 
from Tradition. 

NOTWITHSTANDING the gross ignorance which over- 
spread the Heathen world, was very great ; jet it cannot be de- 
nied that there are v ery many surprising hints of truth to be found, 
in many of their writings, in reference even to matters of religion. 

The Deists take up whatever they meet with of this sort, and 
confidently give it out, That, all this they discovered by the mere 
light of nature. 

There are who, on the other hand, will scarce allow them to 
have made any of those discoveries by the light of nature ; but 
ascribe whatever hints of truth are to be met with, to tradition. — 
This is said to be the opinion of Eusebius and Scaliger, by Dr. 
Owen.* And it is of late maintained by Mr. Nicolls, the inge* 
nious author of the Conference with a Theist.-f For which Mr. 



* Theol. Lib. 1. C. 8. Pavag-. 4. 
•r Confer. Part 2. page 22, S3, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 171 



Becconsal^ the author of a late treatise concerning the Law of Na- 
ture, is much displeased with him, and takes him to task. J 

I design not to make myself a party in this debate, I think that 
there is somewhat of truth on both sides : But if either think to 
carry the matter to the utmost, I think also there will be mistakes 
on both hands. It is too much to say that they discovered no- 
thing in reference to religion by the mere light of nature : Andou 
the other hand it savours of gross ignorajice to say that all we 
meet with in the writings of the ancient sages, was discovered by 
the light of nature. Nothing is more evident, than that many 
things have been handed from nation to nation, and from age to age 
by tradition. This no modest man will or can deny ; it has been 
so clearly made out by many. 

What I assert, and shall attempt to prove, is, " That many of 
the most notable things that we meet with in the Heathen writers, 
in matters of religion, are not to be looked on as discoveries made 
by the light of nature ; but as truths, whereof they were informed 
by tradition. And moreover, that when we find them asserting 
some of those truths, which to us who enjoy the scriptures, and 
by the scriptures have our reason improven, appear to have a 
foundation in reason, we are not therefore to conclude, that reason 
led them to those truths ; but rather, that in many cases they had 
even these from tradition. 

In proving this point I shall not proceed by single instances, but 
shall lay down these general considerations, which at once clear the 
truth of our asertion, and discover whence these traditions might 
come, and how easily they might be conveyed to them. Particu- 
lar instances may be had in great abundance from those who Iiave, 
of set purpose largely insisted on this subject. Amongst others, 
Huetius, in his Demonstraito Evcmgelica, has largely discoursed 
of particular instances of this nature. I think the following obser- 
vations taken together and duly considered, will put our assertion 
beyond question with the sober and judicious. 

1 . It is most certain, that the Jews, however in other regards 
inconsiderable, which makes it still the more observable, had more 
full, clear, and certain knowledge of the true God, religion, and mat- 
ters of worship, than all the world besides. If the Deists please 
to controvert this proposition we shall debate it with them when 
they please. And I dare be bold to say, that I shall prove, that 
there is more true and rational divinity in one of the books of 
Moses, than tliey shall be able to find in all the Heathen writers, 
when the} put all that has been said by all of them together. 

2. Their neighbors, and more especially the Egyptians, had 
many fair occasions of obtaining acquaintance with their opinions 



^- Beccon. of the Law of Nature, C. 4. page 54, 55, Sec. 



272 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



and practices in matters of religion. Several persons at distant 
times, v/ent out from the church and settled in distant nations, — 
Ishniael went out from Abraham's family, and Esau from that of 
Isaac. Now it cannot be supposed, how wicked soever these per- 
sons were, but they would carry out with them some true notions, 
opinions and practices, in matters of religion. Nor can it rea- 
sonably be denied, that they founded their new government oft 
some of these notices, though variously blended and mixt with 
corrupt additions and alterations, both in matters of opinion and 
practice. And it is evident, that these hints, or remainders of 
truth, in matters of opinion and practice, as they were mixt with 
these corruptions, would obtain a general and great respect, as be- 
ing found useful for maintaining order in societies, as being deliver- 
ed to them by the first founders of their nations, as being com- 
mended by their practice, and perhaps established by laws and 
constitutions. Whence it is not possibly to be supposed that these 
notices or practices would in an age, or a few ages, wear out. 

Again, it is particularly observable in this case, that the church 
was, for a long tract of time, in a wandering and unsettled state ; 
which obliged them to more of intimacy with the nations that lay 
near them, than afterwards was necessary, when they settled in a 
land by themselves apart, and were by divine constitutions, barred 
from that familiarity. 

Moreover, as to the Egyptians, they had much occasion of be- 
ing particularly acquainted with the Jews'opinions and practices in 
the matters of God. The Israelites dwelt among them (besides 
what occasioned converse they had before) about 217 years toge- 
ther. The correspondence was again rertewed in Solomon's time, 
by his matching with the king of Egypt's daughter. Jeremiah, 
and a great company with him, staid a considerable time in Egypt, 
and prophesied there to the Jews, who had at that time no separ- 
ate dwellings, and prophesied concerning Egypt ; which, together 
ivith the reputation he had got at Jerusalem, by his predictions that 
were remarkably verified, the notice taken of him by the king of 
Babylon, and the contests he had with those of his own nation, 
could not but make him much regarded. 

It is further considerable, that there were many things, which 
may reasonably be supposed to excite an uncommon curiosity in 
the Egyptians, to understand the religion of the Jews. It is known 
what a place Joseph long had in Egypt, and how he managed it. 
Afterwards the people, while under bondage, were scattered through 
out the land, and the piety of some of them appearing in their suf- 
ferings, could not but be taken notice of, as their scattering through 
the land, gave occasion to the Egyptians to inquire, as to the prin- 
ciples that influenced it. The miraculous appearances of God on 
behalf of that people in Egypt and its neighborhood, in the wilder- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 271: 



ness, would have excited the curiosity of a people, mucli less in- 
quisitive than they were. Tlie reputation of Solomon, his alli- 
ance with the crown of Egypt, and his trafEck with them, as they 
gave a new occasion, so could not but spur them on to inquire fur- 
ther into matters of this sort. If to all this you add the general 
character which writers of all sorts give to the Egyptians, That they 
were a people more than ordinarily fond about matters of religion, 
insomuch that our author Herbert observes, that they are said to 
be the first that taught religion and if further it is considered, 
that the Gentiles, firiding the unsatisfactoriness of their own opin- 
ions and practices, were very much inclined to change, and adopt 
the customs, practices and way of every nation in matters of reli- 
gion, to try if they could find any thing more satisfying than their 
own ; — if, I say, all these are laid togethier, it cannot be doubted 
that the neighboring nations, and particularly the Egyptians, learn- 
ed many things from the Jews in matters of religion. 

3. It is observable, that all these things fell out a considerable 
time before any of those great men appeared or flourished in the 
world, whose writings are come to us, and contain those truths, 
concerning the rise whereof we now discourse. 

The seven sages, Thales, Solon, Pittacus, Bias, Chilo, Perian- 
der, and Cleobulus, who raised the reputation of Greece, did not 
flourish till about the time of the Babylonish captivity, and long 
after the dispersion of the Ten Tribes; some do reckon it 125 
years.f Socrates and Plato flourished not for near l.')0 years after 
these again. Now these are among the first who made any consi- 
derable figure for learning of this sort in the Heathen world, whose 
writings are come to us. 

4. All these great men did, for their own improvement, travel 
iiito foreign nations, and made it their business to learn their opin- 
ions and practices. Particularly we are told of the most consi- 
derable of them by Diogenes Laertius and others. That they were 
very nnich concerned to know the opinions of the EgyjDtian priests 
in matters of reliction, and most of what they knew in these matters 

. was taught them by those. This will be denied by none, that is 
acquainted with the lives of those persons. 

5. It is further observable, that in many instances there is such 
a plain resemblance in their opinions to the scriptin*e accou!)ts of 
the oriorin of the world, the deluge^ the peopUno; of the earUi^ and 
most other things, as could not be casual ; but shews plainly that 
they were derived thence. This in particular instances by many, 
particularly Huetlus and others, to whom he refers, is so fiOly de- 
monstrated, that it cannot, without manifest impudence, be denied. 



* DeRelig. Gent. pa^. 8. 

t Le Cleric Comput. Hist. pag-. 35, 40. 

3.0 



274 



AN liSaUIRJ INTO THE 



6. What comes yet somewhat nearer to our purpose, it is very 
observable even as to those truths, which have some foundation in 
reason, such as these, about the immortality of the souls of men, 
and their state after death, and the hke, that those great men of 
old proposed them commonly, without offering any proof of them, 
or any reasons for them. Now it is not credible that, if they had 
been led to those notices by reason, they would have offered those 
important truths, without offering reasons of them. This observa- 
tion we find made, as to its substance, though not on such views, by 
no less a persan than Cicero, who knew as well how matters then 
stood, to speak modestly, as any now can know. Speaking of the 
immortality of the soul, and the ancient philosophers' sentiments 
about it, he says, " Sed redeo ad antiqiios. Rationem illi senten- 
ticB suet non fere reddehant nisi siquid erat numeris aut description- 
ibus expliccmdumr—Platonem ferunt primum deanimorum cBterni' 
tale non solum sensisse idem, quod Pythagoras, sed rationem diam 

7. Nor is it less considerable to prove, that the notions, which 
prevailed about the immortality of the soul, and a future state, 
(and the like may be said of many others) were not learned from 
reason, but from tradition ; and that the impression and persuasion 
of these truths w^ere more generally entertained, and more strongly- 
riveted among the vulgar than among the philosophers. Whole 
shoals of them, or Catervce, as Cicero above quoted speaks, denied 
and derided all these things, which the vulgar firmly believed. — - 
This observation I find made by the learned Dr. Owen, " Cum 
mundi exitu judicium post hanc vitam exercendum, famam ca- 
Iholicam ohtinuit. Ham etiam persuasionem comitata est immor- 
talitatis ammarum prasvmptio, qucB quamvis rationi etiam inni- 
taiur, famen cum maxime semper apud vnlgus, potius quam 'co^a^ 
ohtinuit, non nisi traditioni adscribenda est."]- 

8. When these great men of old do give reasons of their opin- 
ions, they are such, as any one may see, never led them to these 
opinions : but having, by tradition received them, they were asham- 
ed to hold them, without being capable to give any reason for what * 
they held, and therefoi'e, they set their wits on the rack to find 
out what to say for them. And it was but seldom they hit on the 

* " But I return to the ancients. They commonly did not give a reason 
for their opinion, unless w hen any thing- was to be explained by numbers or 
figures. — They say that Plato was the first who not only was of the same opin- 
ion with Pythagoras concerning the immortality of the soul, but who like- 
wise adduced a reason for it." 

t " 1'hat with the end of the world there was to be a judgment after this 
life, had a general fame, and a presumption of the immortality of souls ac- 
companied this persuasion, which although it is supported by reason, yet as it 
has always prevailed most among the vulgar, rather than among philosophers, 
can only be ascribed to tradition.*' 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 275 



true ones. For the most part their reasonings are plainly childish, tri- 
fling and sophistical. It were easy to demonstrate this. As to 
the arguments of Socrates and Plato for the immortality of the 
soul, they are plain sophisms : and upon what design they were ur- 
ged, we liave heard before, viz. to confirm themselves in an opin- 
ion, the belief whereof was accomjianied with some advantage. — 
A learned person says justly, " That Plato endeavors to prove the 
immortality of the soul by such reasons, as, if they conclude any 
thing, would conclude it to be a God.''* And the same may be 
said of Cicero and others. 

9. It is moreover remarkable, to this purpose, that not only are 
there many things to be met with in the writings and practices of 
the ancient writers amongst the Heathens, whereof no colourable 
reason can be given, nor any account made, otherwise than by as- 
cribing them to ancient and corrupted traditions ; but further, that 
they knew not how to manage or improve those hints, which were 
this wa3^ handed to them. Most of them quite spoil these things in 
the telling. A few of the more wise, conscious of their own ig- 

' norance, yet wanting humility and ingenuity enough to acknowledge 
it, wrap themselves in clouds, and express themselves darkly, to 
conceal their own ignorance from the vulgar; and one that under- 
stands, would not know whether to laugh or be angry, to see their 
fond admirers, in later ages, sweating to fetch sublime meanings 
from words which the writers themselves really understood not. 

10. In the last place, we find the ancients themselves, on some 
occasions, owning, that they owed the first discoveries of these 
things to tradition. Dacier in her life of Plato, tells us, " That 
he first instructs them in religion, about which he establishes no- 
thing, without having consulted God ; that is, nothing but what is 
conformable to true tradition and ancient oracles.^ To evince 
the truth of this, Plato's own words are subjoined, " God, (saith 
Plato) as we are taught by ancient traditiony having in himself the 
beginning, the middle and end of all things, always goes on in his 
way, according to his nature, without ever stepping aside ; he is 
followed by justice, which never fails to punish the transgressions 
committed against his law." J And a little after, speaking about 
the punishments of the wicked, he proceeds thus, " They are 
not limited to the miseries of this life, nor to death itself, from 
which even good men are not exempt ; for these are penalties too 
light and short, but they are horrible torments." But yet more 
remarkable to this purpose are his words in his epistles, " Anti- 
quis vero sacrisq ; sermonibus fides semper hahenday qui declarant 
animum nobis esse wmiortalem, et judices habere, quorum decre-' 



* Dr. Howe's living temple, Part 1. page 122. 
7 Life of Plato, page 86. 
■f Plato de Ligibus, Lib. 4, 



^6 AN INauIRY INTO THE 



tisypro merito pramia et supplicia maxima atiribuaniur, nt pru 
mum quis e corpore decesserit.^'^ 

Lay these things together, and as they are in themselves, evi- 
dent enough : so I think they amount to a full demonstration of 
the assertion, we have above laid down, for the proof whereof we 
adduced them ; and they do abundantly shew, how inconsiderately 
every thing met with in ancient writers is put upon the score of 
nature^s light. 



CHAP. xvn. 

Wherein ive consider what Herbert's opinion was as to the sufficiency 
of his Articles, and we offer some reflections, shewing how fool- 
ish,absurd and riciiculous the Deisfs. pretences to their sufficiency 
are. 

WE have now demonstrated that these five articles did not 
universally obtain in the world, and that consequently the Heathen 
world had not the means necessary to salvation. 

But should we grant what has been above proved to be false, viz. 
That these articles did universally obtain ; yet all is not done, nor 
is the difficulty so got over ; for we are not agreed, that these, 
though acknowledged, are alone sufficient. 

We know our author would have us to believe, that they are 
sufficient. He tells us to this purpose, that when he had found 
them out, he saw that there was nothing wanting to make a com- 
plete religion. Quam hasce igitur eximias veritates seorsim pa- 
rassem, disquisivi porro, quid hisce adjecerint, vel quidem adjiccre 
possint sacer dotes, wide ccrllor fidei circa salutem (Bternam da- 
retur norma, aut vitce integritas sanctitasq ; mag^is promoveretur, 
aut communis ubique stabiliretur concordia. Videham satis alia 
atque alia hie addi posse, quin et addita fuisse ; sed qiicc veritates 
hasce obstruerent, enervarentque potius, quam vim roburque tllis 
conciliarent.-f And indeed our author is so bold as to challenge 
ail the world to shew what can be added to these five articles. Ut 



* Plato, Epist. 7. — " But credit ought always to be given to ancient and 
eacred speeches, which declare that our souls are immortal, and that these 
are judges by whose sentences great rewards and punishments are to be dis- 
tributed according to merit, as soon as we shall have left the body." 

f " When tlierefore I had got these excellent truths by themselves, I next 
inquired what priests had :idded, or could add to these, whereby they might 
" be a surer guide of our faith concerning; eternal salvation, or integrity auvl 
sanctity of life luoi-e promoted, or common concord establislitd every 
where. 1 saw well enough that difl'erent thing's might be added, nay had 
been added to ih^ in, but such as ratlier obstructed and enervated these 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 277 



viderent inteiea. antistites, pmsulesq ; per totum orbem dijj'usif 
quid hiscc quinq ; Articulis, addere pohierint : Unde vera ilia 
virtus, qua homines Deo similes, consortioque ejus dignos efficit ; 
vel pietas, puritas sanditasq : vitct magis promoveri possint.^ 
And growing still bolder by this imaginary success, he proceeds 
to inveigh, though more covertly, against the satisfaction of Christ, 
as destructive to piety. Of which he gives a most disingenuous 
account, as commonly he does of all the articles of revealed re- 
ligion, which he has occasion to mention. 

But however confident our author is, of the suflSciency of his 
five articles in this place ; yet elsewhere he shews he had not 
over much certainty in his own mind, about this matter : For 
some pages after, he says, Et quidem quinque hosce Articulos 
bonos, catholicosque esse unusquisq; Procid dubio fatebetur ; ad 
salutem tamen ceternam romparandam non suffixere perhibebunt 
nonnulli ; cczterum qui ita locutus fuerit, ne ille quidem audax ; 
nedum sczvum temerariwnq; affatem ( mea sententia ) protiderit ; 
quum nulli satis explorata sint Judicia Divina ; quam etiam ob 
4iausam, neque ea sujficere protenus dixerim : attamen magis pro- 
babilis mihi videtur eorum opinio, qui aque pie ac leniter de Dei , 
Judiciis statuunt, dum homo, quod in se est, prcestat ; neque enim, 
in cujusve potestate est, ut fides sive traditiones quantumvis lax(L 
CprcBsertim ubi aliqua ex parte contravertunturj ad se satis per- 
tingant, neque tandem recta communiq ; ratione quinq ; Articulis 
nostris addi potest dogma, unde magis pii, sincerique evadunt ho- 
mines ; aut pax, concordiaq ; publica magis promoveatur.^ — 
Here our author is more modest. 

Thus we have seen what his opinion is ; it now remains that 
we offer some reflections on it. Many offer themselves : I shall 
only touch at a few. 

f * it —That the priests and bishops, scattered over the whole world, might 
*' see in the mean time, what they could add to these five articls ; or by what 
** means that true virtue, which renders men like to God, and worthy of his 
" fellowship, or by which piety, purity and sanctity of life, can be more pro- 
** moted." 

t " And indeed every one will doubtless confess, that these five articles 
** are g-ood and catholic ; yet some will think they are not sufficient for at- 
** taining" eternal life. But whoever would say so, would be guilty of utter- 
** ing" not only a bold, not to say a cruel and arbitrary sentence, in my opinion, 
" as the Divine judg-ments are not sufficiently known to any one, for which 

reason likewise, neither would I positively affirm that they were suffi- 
** cient. Yet the opinion of those seems to be the more probable, who judge 
*' equitably, piously and mildly of the Divine judgements, while a man does 
*' what depends on him ; for it is not in the power of every one, that creeds 

or Traditions, however lax, (especially when they are any where contro- 
" verted) should extend to him ; nor in fine, can any doctrine be added to 
*' our five articles by right and common reason, whereby men may become 
" more pious and sincere, or peace and public concord may be more promo- 

ted." 



278 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



1. Though the Deists are as desirous as any, to confine religion 
{o a narrow compass, and perhaps it is as much their interest, as it 
is of any sort of men, that it should consist of few articles ; yet, 
for shame, they cannot make it contain less, than those five ar- 
ticles. They own, and must own all those necessary to salvation, 
both in belief and practice. It is not possible, they themselves 
being judges, to reach the ends of religion, if any of them are cut 
off. Since then we have above proved that these did not univer- 
sally obtain, it is plain, that all mankind had not sufficient know- 
ledge of religion. Thus it is in fact. 

But now where shall the blame of this be laid ? On themselves ? 
On the priests ? Or on God ? This last cannot be said. 

Well then must these villains of priests, with whom our author 
and all the succeeding Deists are so angry, bear the blame of it, in 
that they did not better teach and instruct the people, in the 
grounds of sincere religion ? But though our author, and all the 
Deists, would fain lodge the blame here ; yet I am scarce satisfied 
of the justice of the charge ; (though I am willing to own, that 
they were not for the most part arch-villains) for how shall it be 
made appear that they themselves knew the grounds of sincere re- 
ligion ? I know our author blames them for not imparting the 
knowledge of sincere religion to the people ; and that he may be 
sure to shut the door upon them that they may not escape, he 
adds by way of parenthesis, licet illis satis cognitam,^ But how 
proves he this, that they knew that chaste and sincere religion 
well enough ? Might they not be supposed ignorant of it, afe well 
as most of the philosophers, the greatest moralists not excepted ? 
Again, I do not well see what right they had to teach, or how 
they were obliged. Did the law of nature authorise them to be 
public teachers ? I believe the Deists think not. Was not every 
man, able to shift for himself, and find the way to blessedness ? If 
he was, what need was there to trust these villainous priests ? 
Who was obliged to Hsten to them ? If every man was not able, 
without the help of some instructor, then if that instructor failed 
in his duty, as it is certain they did almost perpetually, (nay our 
author will not allow, nor see I indeed any need of that almost J 
what becomes of the poor vulgar, who, without instruction cannot 
reach competent knowledge ? He is not able to reach it, his in- 
structors fail of their duty ; and for any thing I see, the poor man 
wants, and must always want a sufficient religion, and that with- 
out any fault of his. 

Well, then, unavoidably, either every man is able to do and 
know for himself, in matters of religion ; or a great many, even 
most of the poor vulgar, are lost for good and all ; and there is no 

* Pag. 180 snl) ^/inem.-^" Although it wafi sufficiently known to them.'' 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 279 



help for it, and that without their fault. If the last be said, our au- 
thor has lost his point quite ; and if this be a fault, he will lay it 
at the door of Providence, that has not sufficiently provided all 
men, in the means necessary for their future happiness : If the first 
be said, then the blame must lie at every man's own door. But me- 
thinks our author is not willing of this ; for he w^ould always ex- 
cuse the vul2;ar, and suppose them so rude and ignorant, that they 
had not either will, courage, nor ability to step otherwise than they 
were led. But after all, the fault must be lodged at their doors, or 
the Deist's whole cause is lost. I confess, any one that was under 
such impressions of their stupid ignorance, as our author seems to 
have been, will even think it hard enough to say that every one of 
them had this ability, to find out a sufficient religion ; and I believe, 
not without ground ; though I still think, that they might have 
known, and done more than they did ; but this will do the Deist's 
cause no service. 

2. But further, the Deists must own that natural religion, accor- 
ding to this mould of it at least, did never obtain in purity, without 
any additions, in any place of the world. Our author confesses, 
that on this foundation, there was every where a strange super- 
structure raised. After he has spoken of those articles, he subjoins, 
" Haec igitur sincerioris Gentilium rellgionis partes fuere ; reliqus 
" vel commentitiae fabellse vel archetypre nugje, vel scitamenta quae- 
" dem prohiberi possunt : inter quse (damno mortalium) nonnulia 
" insana, nonnulia etiam impia visebantur."* Now, this being the 
*case, I would gladly know, if our author's five articles are looked 
upon as of such virtue, that they could hallow all these additions 
made to them, or at least, so far furnish an antidote for their poison, 
that persons, who embraced this complex frame of religion, consisting 
of these five articles, and such additions as in every nation w^ere 
made to them, might yet reach happiness, or not. 

It is pretended that these five articles of natural religion, though 
contaminated with these additions, (as our author speaks, when he 
enters upon liis discourse, about those orthodox points of religion, 
" Ritibus, caereraoniaeq ; contaminabantur, conspurcabanturq,")!* 
are sufficient to lead to happiness, then this is plainly to say, that 
the religion of every country was good and sufficient, and that eve- 
ry one might be saved by that religion he- was bred in. J If the 
defence of this is undertaken, it will be found a pretty hard pro- 
vince, and one will not easily be able to defend, That the complex 

* 212. — *' These then were the parts of the more pure religion of the Hea- 
thens, the others were devised tables, or ancient trifles, or false ornaments, 
** among" which, to the loss of man, some mad and even impious things were 
likewise to be seen." 
f Pag. 184. Cap. 4. at the close. 
~ Herbert de Veritate, pag. 272. 



280 



AN INftUIRY IKTO THE 



religion of every country was sufficient, or that the virtue of those 
articles was such, as to preserve from the hurt of the additions. 
What if, in the complex frame of most religions of the world, some 
of our author's fundamental articles are justled out of their, own 
place ? Perhaps, while each religion sets up for so many inferior 
gods, they rob the one supreme God of much of his glory, to a- 
dorn these imaginary gods with. It may be, more stress is laid on 
rites than on virtue, which our author makes the principal part of 
worship. Perhaps more stress is laid on their rites for expiation, 
than on repentance. What if the additions made are such, as are 
utterly inconsistent with a due regard to these articles, or a just im- 
provement of them ? What if there are other things yoked in with 
them in most religions, that are as derogatory to the honor of God, 
as these can be supposed conducive for its advancement? How can 
such a horrid medley of things, sound and unsound, orthodox foun^ 
dations and impious superstructures, be acceptable to God, or use- 
ful to man ? One half, to wit, our author's five catholic articles, is 
designed to lead men to bliss, pretend the Deists : And the other, 
to wit, the rites and ceremonies, are designed to the worst of pur- 
poses, by those villains of priests, who aim at cheating the world. 
Now, how shall such cross designs agree or consist ? Or, how can 
means adapted to so very different, nay, quite opposite ends, be 
united and hang together ? Or, if they are united, how can that re- 
ligion, which consists of such jarring and incoherent materials, turn 
to any account ? But this opinion is so ridiculous, that I need not 
insist in disproving of it. No man of sobriety can ever pretend 
that these articles can be of any use, if each of them is not kept in 
its own place, and if care is not taken to guard against all additions, 
which are inconsistent with a due respect to those articles. Some 
little addititions, perhaps one might suppose would do no great 
hurt ; but if there are any, that entrench on the foundations, and 
put them out of their place, the whole fabric falls, and all is ruined. 
Now I think it were no hard work to prove, that the additions were 
such, in every nation, as rendered the whole utterly useless, and in- 
sufScient to any of the most considerable ends of religion, either 
with respect to God or man. 

But if it is pretended, that while those five articles are asserted 
sufficient, it is only meant, that if persons would abandon all those 
extravagant, destructive and filthy additions, which every where 
are made to them, and only regard them, then in following these 
they might attain to life and eternal happiness : If, I say, this is 
alledged, then I would ask, how shall we distinsiuish betwixt those 
articles and others that are interwoven with them, in each country ? 
By what marks shall the necessaries be known from the non- neces- 
raries? The fundamentals from the accessaries ? Is every man able, 
with our author, to dissect and inspect the several religions of the 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 281 



countries where they live, and separate the necessaries from these 
that are not so ? Our author found this a pretty hard task : What 
shall poor mean people then think of it ? Our author has shown 
what fair pleas might be made for many of the most pernicious 
parts of the religions of the nations. Would a poor countryman 
be able to rid his feet of such fetters ? It is utterly impossible that 
the one half of mankind could distinguish betwixt what was to be 
rejected, and what was to be retained. In a word, it is evident, 
that all the world over, things pernicious and destructive were so 
twisted in with thmgs of another sort, and such fliir pleas made for 
Ihem, that it was utterly impossible for the poor ignorant vulgar to 
divide the one from the other. Since then these five articles sig- 
nify nothing, unless they were severed from these other things, 
which were every where interwoven with them, and most part of man- 
kind were utterly unable to do this, which I doubt no man ever did 
before our author, it seems evident, that of whatever use they may 
be to our author, who was so sharp sighted as to spy them out and 
distinguish them from the other things with which Ihey were mixt ; 
yet they can be of no use to the far greater part of mankind, and 
consequently the far greater part of the human race, still must be 
owned destitute of the means that may be justly termed sufficient 
to lead them to future happiness. These five articles, as in fact 
they have always been interwoven with other things, were not suf- 
ficient to save any ; and whatever their force might be, if they 
had been severed from other things, yet they not being so, before 
our author did it, and most part of men being utterly incapable 
of making this distinction, they must be looked on as insufficient 
to many, at least of mankind, who therefore certainly were desti- 
tute of means needful for future happiness, and so left to perish. I 
know our author pretends that some were able to distinguish, and 
did make a difference betwixt these articles and the additions : Ve~ 
rumquinq; artkulos supra didos (utique in corde describimiurj 
sine ulla hcesitatione accipiebant olim Gentiles procul duhio ; de 
reliquis pulo, ambigebant,tum ii prcEsertim, qui inter illos saltern 
sapientiores mtimabantur,^ How ill-grounded our author's con- 
fidence as to the universal acceptance of his five articles is, we have 
seen above. What he subjoins about the Gentiles distinguishing 
the additions that were made to them, /rom them, comes not up tc> 
the point : For the question is not, Whether some could thus dis- 
tinguish the one from the other ? But, Whether all did, or could : 
And when he pretends that some of the more discerning did so, 
what proof does he advance? Nothing but his bold puto- This refiec- 

* Page 211.— " But doubtless the Heathens formerly received, without any 
" hesitation, those five articles above mentioned (as beinjy written m their 
*♦ hearts) of the rest I think that they doubted, and especially those iiHiong- 
** them who were reckoned wiser than others." 

3t; 



282 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



tion might be further urged, but I shall pass it, and proceed to ano- 
ther. 

3. How shall one be satisfied that these five articles are all that 
were necessary ; or that they are sufficient ? Are the Deists all 
agreed about this ? No, we have heard one above making seven ne- 
cessary. Nay, our author is not too confident, as we have heard 
above, when he says, Quam niilli satis explorata sint judicia divi- 
na ; quam etiam oh causam, neqiie eos sufficere protenus dixerim.'^ 
We see our author is not very sure about the sufficiency of those 
articles. But he seems pretty positive that there is no other arti- 
cle discoverable by the common reason of mankind, that can be of 
any great use, or that is necessary to answer the great ends of re- 
ligion, the public peace and bettering of mankind. But we see the 
Deists are not all agreed here ; some think more needful. But I 
have two or three words to say to all this — May no article be al- 
lowed necessar}^ that is controverted ? So our author insinuates. 
And Blount in his Religio Laid, is positive oftener than once.f 
Then I would know of the Deists, Have never these articles, any 
or all of them, been controverted ? Have not we already proven, 
that the first article has been controverted, about the being of one 
supreme God^ Is not our author's third article, viz. " That virtue 
(as it is discoverable by the light of nature) is the principal part of 
the worship of God," disputed by Christians ? Do not the follow- 
ers of Spinoza deny repentance to be a duty, and that in compli- 
ance with their master, who pretends to demontrate in his Ethicks, 
" That he who repents is twice miserable ?''J Has not the fifth 
been controverted by many of old ? Let any who denies this read 
Cicero, Lib. 3. Tiisc, Quest, or Plato's PMow, and they will learn, 
that it has been controverted by more of the wise men than em- 
braced it. And do not very many of our modern Deists call it in 
<jiiestion ? Again, have there not been some other articles as uni- 
versally agreed upon, as little controverted, and perhaps even less 
than some of these ? To give but one instance. Has not the article 
about the worship of God, that he was to be worshipped with some 
solemn external Vi orship, whom we owned as God, been as much 
agreed to as any of the rest ? Doth it not arise from the common 
reason of mankind ? But I shall wave this. 

4. There is another thing that I would know of the Deists, con- 
cerning their five articles. Do they think them, as they are pro- 

* Vid. pa^. 47. — As the divine judgments are not sufficiently known to any 
" one, for which reason likewise, neither would I positively affirm tliat they 
" were sufficient." 

j Compare pag. 3 and 4. 

t Spin. Ethicks, pag. 4. Prop. 54. Poentenitia virtus non est, sive ex rationc 
mil oritur^ qnem facti paniiet, bis miser, sen impotens est. — Penitence is not a 
virtue, nor arises from reason, for he who repents of what he has done, is^ 
twice miserable, or weak." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 283 



posed, sufficient ? Or must they not be well explained ? If as they 
are proposed, I would gladly see the man that can have the face to 
maintain, what is not only untrue, but ridiculous. Will, for instance, 
the owning virfue to be the principal part of the worship of God, 
signify any thing to the world, while they know not, and are not 
agreed what is virtue and what is vice ? Is not this to mock the 
World, to propose general articles, and tell the world is agreed about 
them, while yet one half is not agreed Avhat is the signification of 
these general words ? Is not this a plain cheat ? It is true, Blount, 
who has copied all from our author, as the present Deists do from 
him, tells us that these articles must be well explained. " Neither 
" can I, (sfiys he) imagine so much as one article more in common 
" reason, that could make man better, or more pious, when the 
" foresaid were rightly explicated and observed."* But now are 
not these articles sufficient unless rightly explicated T No, he dares 
not say it. Well, was the world agreed about this right explication 
of them ? Who ever did rightly explain them ? Point us to the per- 
son who did it, either for himself or others ? Was every body able 
to do it for himself ? If not, then I fear the world wanted still a 
sufficient religion, after all the pains taken to provide them in one. 
And further, what is the meaning of author's wording the third ar- 
ticle, " That virtue is the principal part of the worship of God ?" 
This may be true, though it be not the owty part. Well, though 
it is the principal part, may there not be another part necessary ? 
Though perhaps the head of a man is the principal part, yet there 
are some other parts necessary. W^as not the world as much agreed 
that there should be another part, as that this was a part of the 
worship of God ? I believe it is easy to prove the world was more 
agreed as to \\sr first than the last. Why then must this be over- 
looked ? I believe I could guess pretty nearly-^he was afraid to do 
it, because he saw that he would presently be confounded with the 
differences about the way of worship, and that he would never be 
able to maintain that reason was sufficient to direct us to the solemn 
worship of God ; and that, if he should assert it, he would have 
not only Christians to dispute the point with him, but Heathens. 
But lest it should be thought that what is alleged of the Heathens' 
looking on reason as incompetent for this, is groundless, I shall only 
copy you a little of Socrates* and Alcibiades' discourse about wor- 
ship, out of Plato, or rather remind the reader of what we quoted 
from him before. Socrates meets Alcibiades going to the temple 
to pray, and dissuades him from it, because he knew not how to do 
it, till one should come and teach him. Socrates says, " It is alto- 
" gether necessary you should wait for some person to teach you 
how you ought to behave yourself, both towards the gods and 



* Reli^io Laici. nag. 73-> 



284 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



" men." Alcibiades replies, " And when will that time come, Ho- 
crates? And who is he that will instruct me ? With what plea- 
" sure should I look on him !" Whereupon Socrates bids him hope 
<* that God will do it, and will take the mist off his soul, and cure 
" him of that darkness, that hinders him from distinguishing betwixt 
" good and evil." Whereupon Alcibiades says, " I think I must 
" defer my sacrifices to that time." To which Socrates returns, 
" You have reason : It it is more safe to do so, than run a great 
" risk.""^ And the same Plato elsewhere tells us, " That this in- 
" structer must be a person somewhat more than human." Nor 
was Jambilichus, a famous Platonick philosopher, who lived in the 
fourth century, otherwise minded, whose words, as I find them 
translated by Mr. Ferguson, run thus : " It is not easy to know 
" what God will be pleased pleased with, unless we be either im- 
" mediately instructed by God ourselves, or taught by some per- 
" son whom God hath conversed with, or arrived at the know- 
ledge of it by some divine means or other."f 

5. There is another thing that I would gladly be informed of, and 
that is, whether every sort of knowledge of them be sufficient T Or, 
is a clear, certain and firm persuasion needful ? If the first. How 
can a dark, uncertain and wavering knowledge have that influence 
upon practice, and that vigor to excite to a compliance with them, 
which is absolutely needful in order to attain the benefit of them ? 
If the latter. How will pur author prove, that it was any where to be 
met with, as to them all, in the Heathen world ? Or, how will he 
make it appear, that it is attainable by mere reason ? Methinks our 
author's words above noted, as to the fifth article, seem not to im- 
port any great certainty. This might be urged to that degree that 
it would be very hard, nay, I fear not to say so, impossible, for the 
Deists to rid their feet of it. 

6. I would further know. Will these five articles be sufficient to 
this end, to lead to eternal happiness^ whether men direct to it or 
not? Is not the intention of some consideration in moral actions? 
And what if I should deny that the religion of Heathens was di- 
rected to this end, the obtaining of future happiness ? If I should, 
I know some very great men are of my mind. I shall name two, 
the one a Christian, the other a Heathen. The first the famous 
Samuel PufFendorff, counsellor of state to the late king of Sweden. 
His words are worthy to be here transcribed, though somewhat 
long. " Now to look back to the first beginnings of things, we find, 
*' that before the nativity of our Saviour, the inhabitants of the whole 
" universe, except the Jews, lived in gross ignorance as to spiritu- 

* M. Daciei's Plato Englished, Vol. 1. page 249, 250. Second Alcibiad. Or, 

Of Prayer. 

t Lib. 4. de Lege Civ. by Dr. Leslie against the Jews, pag. 386. Ferg. En- 
qyir, into mond virtuf., he. pag. 177. JuiDbili. de Vita. Pythag. Cap. 28. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 285 



" al affairs. For what was commonly taught concerning the gods, 
, « was for the most part involved in fables, and most extravagant 
" absurdities. It is true, some of the learned among them have 
" pretended to give some rational account concerning the nature 

of the gods and the soul ; but all this in so imperfect and dubi- 
" ous a manner, that they themselves remained very uncertain in 

the whole matter. They agreed almost all of them in this point, 
** that mankind ought to apply themselves to the practice of virtue, 
" but they did not propose any other fruits, but the honor and bene- 

fits, which thence did accrue to civil society. For what the po- 

ets did give out concerning the rewards of virtue and the punish- 
" ments of vice after death, was by these, who pretended to be 
" the wisest among them, looked upon as fables, invented to terri- 
** fy and keep in awe the common people. The rest of the people 
" lived at random, and what the Heathens called religion, did not 
" contain any doctrine or certain articles concerning the knowledge 
" of divine matters. But the greatest part of their religious 
" worship consisted in sacrifices and ceremonies, which tended 
" more to sports and voluptuousness, than to the contemplation of 
" divine things. Wherefore the Heathen religion did neither edi- 
" fy in this life, nor afford any hopes or comfort at the time of 
" death."* Thus far he. Now methinks here is a quite differ- 
ent account of the Heathen world from that which our author give^ 
us, and that given by no churchman, but a statesman ; and one as 
learned as our author too, and that both in history and the law of 
nature, as his works evince ; and in my opinion it is the juster of 
the two accounts. The second is Varro, quoted by our author, 
who divides the religion of the Heathens into three sorts, Primum 
genus appellat ; Mythicon secundum ; Civile tertium Physicum.f 
The first is that of the poets, which is altogether fabulous. The 
other which he calls natural, is that of the philosophers, which is 
wholly employed about the nature of the gods. And Varro ex- 
pressly says, it was not meet for, nor of any use to the vulgar. 
The third sort was what he calls civil, which was wholly calculated 
for human society, and its support ; and to this all the public wor- 
ship belonged, if we may believe Vairo in the passage we now 
speak of. When he has opened the nature of each of them, be 
concludes with an account of the design of them. " Prirna tkeo- 
" logia maxinie accommodata est ad theatrum : secunda scil, na-^ 
turaJis ad mundum : Tertia ad wr6em."J No word here of eter- 
nal life, as the design of any of them. The passage itself fully ex- 
cludes it, and had it not been too long, had been worthy to be tran- 
scribed. 



* Introduct. Hist, of Europe, pag-. 357. Ch. 12. Par. 2. 

t See it also in August, de Civit. Dei, Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 

^ " The first theology is fittest for the theatre, the second, to wit, the nalu. 

ral, for the world, and the third for the city." 



28& AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

7. To draw to a conclusion, Was it enough to the Heathens 
that these things were sufficient, although they did not know them 
to be so ? Or was it needful that they should know them to be so Z 
Jf the last be said, how could they be sure about that, even the vul- 
gar sort of them, which our author, after all his application to this 
controversy, could not win to be sure of ? If the first be said, I 
would ask any Deist, Was not the end of natural religion fixed, 
and were they not certain ? Or might they not, at least, be fixed 
and certain about it ? If it was not, how could they use or chuse 
means, or direct them to an end which was not fixed, and they were 
not certain about ? If it was, then with what courage could they 
use means with respect to an end and means, in the use of which 
they had so many difficulties to grapple with ; yet they could not 
be sure that they were sufficient by the least use of them to gain 
the end ? Was it enough of encouragement, that they might use 
them at all adventures, not knowing whether they were, in them- 
selves, sufficient to reach the mark or not ? Methinks our author 
is very defective as to motives to excite to virtue. 

CHAP. XVIII. 

Containing an answer to some of the Deists^ principal arguments 
for the sufficiency of Natural Religion, 

WE have now considered what the Deists plead from univers- 
al consent ; and have sufficiently cleared that it is not by them 
proven, that the world was agreed as to these articles ; that in- 
deed the world did not agree about them ; that even they who 
owned them, were led to this acknowledgement, at least of 
some of them, rather by tradition than nature^s light ; and that 
though they had acknowledged them, they are not sufficient. It 
now remains that we consider those arguments, wherein they con- 
ceive the great strength of their cause to lie. 

The first argument, which indeed is the strongest the Deists 
can pretend unto, is thus proposed by their admired Herbert : 
" Et quidem quum media ad victum, vestitumque heic commoda 

suppeditant cunctis natura sive Providentia rerum communis, 
' suspicari non potui, eundum Deum, sive ex natura, sive ex gra- 
" fifl, in suppeditandis ad heatiorem hoc nostro statum, mediis^ 
" ulli hominum deesse posse vel velle, adeo ut licet mediis illis 
" panim recte, vel feliciter usi sint Gentiles^ hand ita tamen per 
" Deum optimum maximum steterit, quo minus salvi fierenty^^ 



* For the translation; see note at bottom of page 228 of this book. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 287 



To the same puqjose speaks Blount in his Religio Laid, and A, 
W, in his letter to him in the Oracles of Reason, of whom after- 
wards. The force of all that is here pleaded will best appear, if 
it is put into a dear argument, and I shall be sure not to wrong it 
in the proposal. The argument runs thus : 

The goodness of God makes it necessary that all men be pro- 
vided in the means necessary for future bliss. 

But all men are provided with no other means of attaining fu- 
ture bliss save nature's light. 

Therefore no other means are necessary for all men save the 
light of nature. 

The minor or second proposition needs not to be proven, since 
it is owned by those who maintain revelation, that it is not given 
to all men, and therefore that many have indeed no other light to 
guide them, save that of nature, in matters of religion, or in any of 
their other concerns. 

The first proposition, " That the goodness of God makes it ne- 
cessary that all men be provided in the means of attaining future 
blessedness,'* is that which they are concerned to prove. And 
the strength of what they urge for proof of it amounts in short 
to this : 

The goodness and wisdom of God seem to render it necessary 
that all creatures J but more especially the rational, be provided in 
all means necessary to obtain those ends they were made capable 
of and obliged to pursue. 

But men are made capable of, and obliged to pursue eternal 
happiness and felicity. 

Therefore the goodness and wisdom of God make it necessary 
that all men shoidd be provided in the means necessary to obtain 
future and eteriml bliss. 

Here we have the strength of their cause, and we shall there- 
fore consider this argument the more seriously, because some seem 
to be taken with it, and look upon it as having much force. Be- 
fore I offer any direct answer, I shall make some general reflec- 
tions on it. The first process is only designed to make way for 
this last, which indeed is the argument, and contains the force of 
what is pleaded by the Deists. 

Now concerning this argument, we offer the few following reflec- 
^ntiDBS, which will not a little weaken its credit, and make it look 
suspicious like. 

1. That proposition whereon its whole weight leans, viz. " That 
the goodness of God obliges him to provide his creatures in the 
means/ necessary for attaining their ends,'* is one of that sort, 
about which we may, in particular cases and applications of it, be 
as easily mistaken, and are as little in tuto,^ to be positive in our 

/* " In safety" 



288 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



determination, aa any where else. For, although we are surer of 
nothing than that God is good, and must act congrmusly to his 
goodness, in general ; yet when we come to make particular in- 
ferences, and determine what, in point of goodness he is obliged 
to do, we are upon very slippery ground, especially if we have 
not, as in this case it is, the means to guide us. For, besides 
that goodness is free in its effects, divine and not affixed to such 
stated rules knowable by us, as justice is, goodness, in its actings, 
is under the conduct and management of all-comprehending wis- 
dom, which in every case wherein God is to act, considers that a 
being not only infinitely good is to act, but also one who is infinite- 
ly wise, holy, just and righteous ; and therefore all-comprehend- 
ing wisdom takes under consideration, or rather has in its view the 
concernment of all those properties of the divine nature ; and 
withall, all the circumstances belonging to each particular case, and 
takes care that the case, in all its circumstances, be so managed, 
that not one of the divine perfections shine to the eclipsing of 
another ; but that all of them appear with a suitable lustre. Now, 
it is certain that we, who are of so narrow understandings, and so 
many other ways incapacitated to judge of the ways of God, can- 
not reach either the different interests of the divine properties, 
and judge, in a particular circumstantiated case, what befits a 
God, who is at once good, holy, wise and righteous ; nor can we 
reach all that infinite variety of circumstances, which lying open to 
the all-comprehending view of infinite and consummate wisdom, 
may make it appear quite otherwise to him than to us. Hence, in 
fact, we see that an almost infinite number of things fall out in the 
government of the world, which we know not how to reconcile to 
divine goodness : and as many are left undone, which we would be 
apt to think infinite goodness would make necessary to be done. 
Tliis consideration, if well weighed, would make men very sparing 
in determining any thing necessary to be done, in respect of di- 
vine goodness, which either It is evident he has not done, or of 
which we are not sure that he has done, which perhaps we shall 
make appear, if it is not from what has been already said, to be the 
case. 

2. I observe, as to what is advanced, " That man is made ca- 
palile of, and obliged in duty to pursue eternal felicity," that al- 
though from revelation we know this to be true as to man in his 
original constitution, and by the remaining desires of it we may 
guess that possibly it was so ; yet, if we set aside divine revela- 
tion, and consider man in his present state, concerning which the 
question betwixt us and the Deists proceeds, we cannot by the 
help of nature's light only, with any certainty conclude, " that 
man is capable of and obliged to pursue eternal felicity." We 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 28^ 



see the man dissolved by death. Nature's light knov/s nothing of 
a resurrection. Without a resurrection there is nothing can he said 
for man's eternal felicity. Though we grant his soul to have no 
principle of corruption in itself, and so to be in this sense immortal ; 
yet this cannot secure us agaiiist the fnars of annihilation. And 
the gusts and desires of felicity, from which we may be induced 
to suspect some such state designed for man, being apparently 
frustrated, by the dissolution of man, to which they have a re- 
spect, cannot but make men, who have no more save nature's Wr^ht, 
hesitate mightily about this assertion ; since it is plain, that the 
desires we find in ourseles of felicity, do respect the whole man ; 
and the aversion we have to dissolution respects our natures in 
their present entire frame and constitution. JBesides, it is of mo- 
ment, that if man, now entire, is at a loss how to judge of the 
ends for which he was made, much more must he be supposed in 
a strait how to judge and determine for what ends any particular part 
belonging to his constituion was designed, after the dissolution of 
the whole in a separate state, that is, in all its concernments, so 
much hid from and unknown to us. Further, although undoubted- 
ly as long as we are, it is our duty to make it our chief aim to 
please God, and seek for felicity only in him ; yet since, not only 
our beings, but that felicity which may be supposed attainable by 
HS, are emanations from sovereign, free and undeserved bounty, 
without some intimation from him, in way of promise, we can draw 
no sure conclusion as to its continuance, were we innocent, much 
less can we being guilty. 

3. This argument concludes nothing in favour of the Deists ; 
whatever it may say for the Heathens. For were it granted, that 
God is obliged to provide for all men the means necessary to future 
felicity ; and that he has not given all men other means; yet it 
cannot be hence inferred, that he has given no other means to 
some. In this case, if all this were granted, which yet we have 
not done, it would follow, that they, who have no other means, 
must look on these as sufficient, and that they really are so : But 
still God is left at liberty to prescribe other duties to any particu- 
lar persons, or nations, by revelation ; and if this revelation come, 
they are obliged, to whom it comes, to attend, receive and obey it. 
Now, if the scriptures be a divine revelation, attended with siiffi-- 
cient evidence, which the Deists must either allow, or overthrow 
w^hat it pleads for itself; they are everlastingly undone, unless they 
receive it, and comply with it. 

4. I observe, that the conclusion of this argument, which it 
aims at the establishment of, viz. That God in point of ^oodncsSj 
must provide all men in the means necessary to future felicity ^ and 
consequently has done it, is exceedingly prejudiced, by its lying 
cross to the plain sejise and experience of the world in all ages, 

3? 



290 



AN INdUIRY INTO THE 



has been plainly made appear. Now in this case, where the prin- 
ciples or premises are dark, and such whereabout we may easily 
be mistaken, which is the case here, as appears by the two first 
reflections ; and the conclusion carries a manifest contradiction to 
what we must certainly know, and have experience of; in this 
case we have reason to conclude, that there lies certainly a fallacy 
or mistake in one or other of the principles ; though we cannot 
discover presently where it precisely is. And therefore, although 
men could not easily except against the premises or principles, 
whence it is deduced ; yet they would think themselves sufficient- 
ly warranted, if not plainly to reject, yet to be shy in admitting 
the conclusion: forasmuch as the admitting the conclusion wifl 
oblige them to deny v/hat their own sense and experience, as well 
as that of the worlds assures them about : Whereas, it is much 
more reasonable to think and determine that there lies some fallacy 
in the principles, though it may be they are not in case to detect 
it. No man, by the arguments against motion, can be brought to 
question its being, much less its possibility ; yet there are thou- 
sands, even no mean scholars, who cannot answer the arguments 
that conclude against it. But in very deed, this argument is not 
so strong, as to need so much nicety. 

Having thus far weakened it by these general reflections, I shall 
next lay down and clear some propositions that will lay a founda- 
tion for a close answer to it. 

] . All men at present, are involved in guilt, have corrupt incli- 
nations, and are under an inability to yield perfect obedience to the 
law, they are subjected to. That all in more or less, are guilty of 
sin, cannot be well denied, and we have heard the Oracles of 
Reason owning^ " That all do err sometimes, even the best, in 
their actions." That men are cornipt, or have corrupt inclina- 
tions, has been above sufficiently evinced. That all are under 
some sort of inability to yield perfect obedience, is attested by the 
experience of all, and besides, is an inevitable consequent of the 
former : for it is not possible to suppose one possessed of corrupt in- 
clinations, and yet able to yield perfect obedience. Nor need we 
stand to prove what the Deists own. For A. W. in his Letter to 
Charles Blount, speaking of the law of nature says, I do not say 
tiiat we are able perfectly to obey it.'^' I dispute not now of what 
sort this inability is, whether only moral, such as arises from the 
will's inclination to evil ; or natural, which imports such an inabili- 
ty as supposes the nature of the faculties vitiated, though the fa- 
culties are not vfanting. The condemnings of our own hearts, and 
the nature of the moral government we are under, sufficiently as- 
sures us, it is such as does not excuse from fault ; and further we 
are not concerned : tliough, after all, I do not understand how the 
will can be fixed in an inclination to evil, or aversion from good. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 291 



unless the nature of the will be supposed affected with some indis- 
position, though the faculty is not removed. But of this only by 
the bye. It is enough to our present purpose, that man is guilty, 
corrupt, and thence unable. He that will deny this, must sup- 
pose us blind and senseless. 

2. If reason can ascertain us of any thing, it does of this, that 
things w ere not originally thus with man, or that man, when he was 
first made, was not thus guilty, corrupt or impotent. Nor will any 
dare to saj^ that at first he was guilty. And to assert him either 
corrupter impotent, overthrows all the just notions we have of the 
Deity. How can it be supposed, that infinite wisdom could enact 
!aws, which were not only not likely to take effect, but really could 
not possibly be obeyed by men subjected to them ! How can we 
suppose infinite goodness to establish laws under a penalty, and deny 
the powers which were indispensably requisite to obey them, and 
without which it was not possible to evite the penalty ! How can 
we suppose infinite righteousness and holiness to consent to a con- 
stitution of this kind ! How is it conceivable, that a God, wise, 
just and good, should originally have implanted in our natures in- 
clinations contrary to those laws, that were the transcript of, and 
bore the impress of all these perfections ! Or, how can we once 
dream that he implanted inclinations, which it was criminal to satis- 
fy or comply with I For my part, I see not what can be reasonably 
said in answer to this. 

3. It is further evident, that man could not have fallen into this 
state he now is in, or from that wherein he was made, but by his 
own default. If this be denied, I inquire, where shall the blame 
belaid? Will they lay it at God's door? Besides, that this is 
blasphemy, it is further evident, that all the former absurdities will 
recur : For it is to no purpose to give powers, and take them away 
again without any default in the person Avho loses them, the obliga- 
tion to obedience or suffering upon disobedience still continuing. — 
Nor can it be laid upon any other, because if man is without his 
own fault, robbed of the powers necessary to obey, the obligation 
to obedience cannot be righteously continued. Nor was it consist- 
ent with the divine wisdom, to have obliged men to obedience, 
under a penalty, while there was a possibility of man's losing the 
power to obey, without a fault on his own part. It remains then, 
that man has by his own fault, forfeited what he has in this part lost. 
And to this our own conscience, and the consciences of all sinners, 
who are sensible of sin, consent, that God is free and we guilty. 

4. Hereon it inevitably follows, that man, is at present in a cor- 
rupt, sinful, and impotent state, into w^iich by his own default, he 
has fallen. Nor see I how it is possible to avoid this, which only 
sums up the three preceding assertions. The first whereof is un- 
deniable with so})er and ingenuous persons, being attested by the 



29-2 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



plainest and clearest experience, and the other two stand firm upoa 
the clearest deductions that our reason can make. If any Deist 
shall say, How can this be that we are fallen into such a state ? I 
answer, 1 . The question is not, How can it be ? bVit, Is it so ? I 
think 1 have said enough to shew that it is so. 2, Hereby w e may 
see natural religion has its mysteries too, as well as revealed. And 
I think I have told more than one of them, 3. If this will not 
satisfy, then get as much faith and humility as will teach you to 
subject yourself to supernatural instruction, and you may come to 
understand how it came to be so. If you will not, you must re- 
main, ir the dark, and there is no help for it. 

Now I have laid a plain foundation for an answer to this argu- 
ment, whereon the Deists value themselves so much. It was not 
becruse 1 thought so long an answer needful for the argument, but 
to make the matter a little more plain, that we have discussed it 
at this length. 

The argimient then runs thus. The wudom and goodness of 
God make it necessary that all his creatures should be provided in 
the means necessary for attaining the end of their being, and this 
holds especially as to the rational : But man was made capable of 
eternal felicity ; or this is the end of his being. 

I need say nothing more to what has been advanced, than has 
been said above. I answer to the first proposition,- — Be it allow- 
ed that God's v, isdcm and goodness required that the rational crea- 
ture should be provided in the means necessary for the attainment 
of the end of his being, in his first make and original state : Yet 
neither God's goodness, nor his wisdom, obliges him to restore 
man, if by his own fault, he has fallen from that state, wherein at 
first he was made. Now this is the case with man in his present 
state, as we have told above. 

If it is said, that this is but our assertion, That man is in a lapsed 
state ; I answer, 1. I think it is more than an assertion, and must 
do so till I see what I haye offered for proof of the foregoing pro- 
positions fairly answered. Nay, till I see the whole arguments 
that have heretofore been offered against the sufficiency of natural 
religion, answered. For, I think they all prove that man is at 
present in a lapsed state. But 2. I add, that the Deists must 
mind, we are upon the defensive, and it is their province to prove, 
that man in his present condition is not so situated, as we say. It 
was c?c abundami for clearing of truth, that I condescended to prove 
ihk. It was enough to me to haA'e denied that man is now in his 
oridnal state, and put the proof upon them ; in regard they affirm, 
and the whole stress and force of their arguments leans upon that 
supposition which vre deny. 

The second argument, on which the Deists lay much stress, is 
ilrawn from the supposed ill consequences attending our opinion.-^ 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 293 



They pretend, that it is horribly cruel to imagine, that all the 
Heathen world should be lost. This they inculcate upon all occasions, 
rather to expose their adversaries, I am afraid, than to confirm the 
truth. The sum of this argument we see proposed by Herbert in 
his words above quoted. Where he tells us, that all will own his 
articles to be good ; Ad salutem tamen (zternam comparandam, 
non sufficere prohibebunt nonnulli. Caterum^ qui ita lociitus 
fuerit, n(B ille (juidem audax ; nedum saevum temerariumq ; effa- 
tum mea sententia protulerit/^ The short of the matter is this, 
" If natural religion is not sufficient, we must give all the Heathen 
world for lost ; but this is a cruel and harsh assertion,, injurious to 
God, and cruel to such a vast number of men." And here they 
raise a horrible outcry. With this they begin, and with this they 
end. 

This argument, although it has no force, as we shall evince, yet 
makes such a noise at a distance, that a great many ingenious spi- 
rits seem to be mightily affected with it : I conceive therefore that 
it will not be improper to lay open the causes of this, and the ra- 
ther because they discover where the fallacy of the argument lies, 
and whence it is that men are so easily prepossessed in this matter. 
To this purpose then it is to be observed, 

1. That there are some things which in themselves are not desira- 
ble ; to v/hich therefore no uncorrupted rational nature, much less 
thst of God, could incline merely upon their own account : which 
yet, in some circumstantiate cases, may be every way congruous 
to justice and righteousness ; yea, and worthy of the wise and 
good God. The torment of any rational creature is not in, or 
for itself desirable : God has no pleasure in it. The nature of 
man, if not deeply corrupted, yea, and divested of humanity, re- 
coils at it ; yet there is none, who will not allow that in many cir- 
cumstantiate cases, it is not only worthy of, but plainly necessary in 
point of wisdom and justice, for the most merciful of men, to in- 
flict upon their fellow creatures such punishments, as their own 
natures do shrink at the apprehensions of. Nor can it be denied, 
that the holy God, nofw^ithstanding of, and without prejudice to 
his infinite goodness^ may, nay in some cases must, likewise thus 
punish his own creatures. Now, if such things are represented as 
they are, in their own natures, without a due consideration of cir- 
cumstances and ends inducing to them, it is easy to make them ap- 
pear not only hard, but odious. 

2. However just, righteous and congruous such actions are ; yet 
he who undertakes to expose them as cruel, barbarous and hard, 
especially, if he has to do with persons, weak, ignorant, partial in 

* De Rel. Gen til, pa^. 217.—" Yet some will think they are not sufficient , 
for attaining eternal life. But whoever would say so, would be guilty ofat- 
tering not only a bold, not to say a cruel and arbitrary sentence in my opinion." 



294 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



favor of the sufferer, and averse from the author of the torment, 
has a far more easy task, even though he is of weaker abilities, and 
employed in defence of the worst cause, than he who undertakes 
to defend such actions. The reason of this is obvioas ; all that 
makes to his purpose, who designs to expose the action as cruel, 
lies open in its nature and horror to the thoughts of the most in- 
considerate ; and if to this he only sets off the representation with 
a little art, so as to touch the affections, which in this case is easily 
done, he has carried his point ; the judgment is not only deceived, 
but the affections are so deeply engaged in the quarrel, as to pre- 
clude the light of the most nervous and valid defence imaginable. 
"Whereas on the other hand, all things are quite otherwise. The 
circumstances inducing to such actions,^ are usually deep, and not 
so easily discernible, and therefore not to be found out, without 
much consideration ; and when they are found out, they are not 
easily collected, laid together, and ranged in that order, which is 
necessary to set the atrocity of the crime in a due light, especially 
where the persons who are to judge are weak and biassed. Be- 
sides, the evil of those crimes, being for most part more spiritual, 
makes not so strong an impression on the affections. And this 
consideration holds more especially true, where the question is 
concerning the judgments of God, which proceed upon that com- 
prehensive view, which infinite wisdom has . of all circumstances, 
that accent the evil, aggravate the fault, and enhance the guilt of 
sins committed against him ; many of which circumstances no mor- 
tal penetration can reach. And further, tliis more particularly 
holds true, where it is not God himself, but man that pleads on be- 
half of the actings of God. It is very observable to this purpose, 
that historians of all nations almost condescend upon instances, 
wherein the sight of severe, but just punishment of atrocious offen- 
ders has not only excited the compassion of the populace to the 
sufferers, but enraged tiiem against the judges. Even they who 
would have been ready to reclaim against the partiality and negli- 
gence of the judge, if the crimes had been passed without just 
punishment, when they see the punishment inflicted, through a 
fond sort of compassion to the sufferers, complain of the cruelty 
of the judge, laying aside all thoughts of the atrocity of the crime. 

3. Where they, who make it their business to traduce such ac- 
tions, as hard and cruel, and they also, whom they labor to per- 
suade of this, are connected by alliance, or common interest with 
the sufferers, are themselves in the same condemnation, or, upoQ 
the same and such like accounts, obnoxious to that justice, which 
adjudges those sufferers to these torments, which they study to 
represent as cruel a^d barbarous, it is nowonderto see that the repre- 
sentation makes such deep impressions, and rivets such a persuasion, 
that the puni£;hmei:ts are cruel and hard, as may not only bias a little 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 



295 



against any defence that can be made for the judge, but may even 
make them refuse to admit of any apology, or condescend so far 
as to give any that can be made a fair hearing. But all unbiassed 
persons must allow, that such can never be admitted judges com- 
petent, as to what is just or unjust, hard or otherwise ; the case 
being, in effect, their own, and they by this means being made 
both judge and party. 

4. However great, terrible and heavy any punishment that God 
is supposed to inflict, may in its own nature appear, or how great 
soever the number of the sufferers may be, yet we can never, from 
the severity of the punishment, or the number of the sufferers, 
disprove its justice, unless we can make it appear, that no circum- 
stances, which can possibly fall under the reach of infinite wisdom, 
can render such severity towards so many persons, worthy of him. 
Now, however easy this undertaking may appear to persons less 
considerate, it will have a far other aspect to such as impartially 
ponder, that all men are manifestly partial in favor of those of 
their own race, and in a case which is, or may be their own, and 
have no suitable apprehensions of the concernments of the divine 
glory in it, or no due regard for them : Besides, such is their shal- 
lowness, that they can neither have under view many important 
circumstances, that are fully exposed to all comprehending wisdom, 
nor can they fully understand the weight, even of these circum- 
stances, that they either do, or may, in some measure know. 

5. Every man who is wise and just, when either he hears of, or 
sees any punishment that appears very severe and terrible, must 
suspend his judgment as to the hardship of it, till the author of it 
is fully heard as to the inducements, and neither ought he to deny 
what his eyes see, his ears hear, or he is otherwise informed of, up- 
on sufficient evidences. He is neither to question the matter of 
fact, nor condemn the judge of cruelty, because of the seeming se- 
verity of the punishment. This is a piece of common justice, 
which every judge, even amongst men, may reasonably claim from 
his fellow creatures, although his actions and the reasons of them, 
cannot be supposed to lie so far out of their ken, as those of the 
divine judgments : Much more is it reasonable for men to pay this 
deference to God, considering how unable the most elevated capaci- 
ties are to penetrate into all the reasons, which an infinitely vns& 
God may have under view ; and there is the more reason for this, 
since man also is naturally so very apt to be partial in his own fa- 
vor, and to fail of giving a due regard in his thoughts unto the con- 
cernments of divine glory. 

These observations, as they are in themselves unquestionably 
true, so they do fully lay open the causes of that general accep- 
tance, which this plea of the Deists has obtained with less attentive 
minds ; and how little weight is to be laid upon them. In a word. 



296 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



if they are well considered, they are sufficient to enervate the force 
of this whole plea. 

But lest the Deists should think their argument slighted, or that 
consciousness of our own weakness, makes lis chuse long weapons 
to fight with, I shall closely consider the argument. Perhaps what 
makes a noise, at a distance, will be less frightful if we take a near- 
er view of it. We deny that the Heathen world had means suffi- 
cient for obtaining eternal happiness. The Deists say, this is cru- 
el and rash. Let us now see whence this may be proven. 

1 . Doth our cruelty lie in this. That we have laid down an as- 
sertion, upon which it follows, that in fact, all the Heathen world 
are lost ? But now, do not the Deists own, that in very deed, all 
impenitent sinners must perish ? No doubt they do, who talk so 
much of the necessity of repentance. Well, are not all who want 
revelation, guilty of gross sins ? Is not idolatry a gross sin ? are 
they not all plunged in the guilt of it ? Socrates, the most consi- 
derable person for his virtue, that lived before Christ, xannot be 
excused. He denied his disowning the gods of Athens. He join- 
ed in their worship. If tiii;^ was against his conscience, the more, 
was his fault. And, even with his dying breath, he ordered a cock 
to be sacrificed to j^^sculapius. Epictetus, the best perhaps among 
the philosophers who lived after Christ, in his Enchiridion^ enjoins 
to worship after the mode of the country where we live ; and no 
doubt practised as he taught. Gentlemen, condescend, if ye can, 
upon one, who was not guilty of gross sins. Did they repent ? 
What evidence bring you of it ? That the multitude lived and 
died impenitent, none dare question. That there was one peni- 
tent none can prove. That the best of them were guilty of gross 
sins cannot be denied, and there is no evidence of their penitence. 
Yea, there is no reason to think that they looked upon repentance 
as a virtue ; but much to the contrary. Well, gentlemen, do not 
your own principles conclude, that the bulk of the Heathen world 
are, in fact, inevitably lost ? And that there is but little ground of 
hope, and great reason to fear, that it fared not much better with 
the few virtuosi, 

2. But doth the cruelty lie in the number of persons supposed 
to be lost ? No. This cannot be said. For if the cause be suffi- 
cient, the number of the condemned makes not the condemnation 
the more cruel. Besides, let them go as narrowly to work as they 
can, they are few, very fev/, for whom they can plead exemption : 
and their pleas for that handful will be very lame. So that for any 
thing I see, the Deists, in this respect, are not like to be much 
more merciful than we. 

3. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That we suppose them 
condemned without a cause, or without one that is sufficient. But 
tkis we do not, we suppose none to be condemned, who are not sin- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 297 



iiers against God, and trangressors of a law stamped with his au- 
thority, which they had access to know. And were not the best 
of them guilty of gross sins ? What evidence have we of their re* 
pentance? Is it not just, even according to the Deists* principles, 
to condemn impenitent sinners ? Tiius we suppose none condemn- 
ed, but for their sins. 

4. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That we suppose them 
all equally miserable ; Socrates to be m no better case than Nero. 
But this follows not upon our assertion. None are supposed mise- 
rable beyond the just demerit of their sins. 

5. Well, perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That we suppose their 
torments after this life to be intense in degree, or ©f a longer con- 
tinuance than their sins deserve. This we are sure of, that their 
sins being offences against God, deserve a deeper punishment, than 
some men can well think of ; and that God is just, and will propor- 
tion punishments exactly to offences, and have a just regard, as well 
to the real alleviations as agravations of every sin. And if God has, 
in his word, determined that every sin committed against him, de- 
serves eternal punishment, no doubt his judgment is according to 
truth. We are not judges in the case. 

6. Well, but the rashness and cruelty perhaps lies here, That 
by our assertion we are obliged to pass a positive and peremptory 
judgment about the eternal state of all the Heathen world, that 
they are gone to hell, and laid under everlasting punishments, leav- 
ing no room for the mercy of God. But to this we say, revelation 
has taught us, even where there is the justest ground of fear, to 
speak modestly of the eternal condition of others, and to leave the 
judgment concerning this to the righteous God, to whom alone it 
belongs, and who will do no iriiqidty. That all the Heathen world 
deserve punishment, cannot, without impudence, be denied. That 
God will pass any of them without inflicting the punishment they 
deserve, neither revelation nor reason give us any ground to think. 
That none of them shall be punished beyond their deservings, 
scripture and reason demonstrate. But in these things our assertion 
of the insuflSciency of natural religion is not concerned. It obli- 
ges us to pass no judgment further than this, <|That the Heath'^ns, 
" and all who want revelation, had no means sufficient to bring them 
" to eternal happiness, and that consequently they had no reason 
" to expect it ; and we have no reason to conclude them posses- 
" sed of W\ And in this case we leave them to be disposed of, 
as to their state, after this life, by the wisdom and justice of 
God. 

7. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That they are supposed 
to want the means necessary to attain eternal happiness, while yet 
they are capable of, and exposed to eternal misery for their siiis. 
But, 1. How will the Deists' prove, That God, without a promise, 

83 



2^8 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



is obliged to give man eternal happiness for his obedience ? 2. Sinee 
none of them are o be punished beyond the just demerit of their 
sins, may not God righteously inflict that punishment, whatever it 
is, that their sins, in strict justice, deserve, though he had never 
proposed a reward, which reason can never prove our best actions 
worthy of, even though we had continued innocent ? But, 3. That 
man, in his present case, has lost the knowledge of eternal felicity, 
and the means of attaining it, and is unable to attain it, is owing 
not to any defect of bounty and goodness of God, much less of 
justice ; but only unto the sin of man, as has been demonstrated 
in our answer to the foregoing argument, by reasons drawn from 
nature's light. Notwithstanding of which, it must still be owned, 
that nature's light cannot acquaint us how man fell into his present 
lamentable condition, as we have above made appear. 

8. But is it not safer and more modest, may some say, to sup- 
pose, that God of his great mercy did, by revelation, communicate 
to some of the best of the Heathens, who improved nature's light 
to the greatest advantage, what was further necessary to their sal- 
vation, or, at least to bring them into a state of happiness, of some- 
what inferior degree to that which is prepared for Christians. I 
know many Christian writers of old and of late have multiplied hy- 
pothesis of this kind : Some have supposed apparitions of angels, 
saints, nay damned souls and devils ; of which stories I am told that 
Collins discourses at large, in the second book of his treatise De 
Aniwabus Paganorum,^ Some tell us, " That to such of them 
as lived virtuously, God always, at some time or other, sent some 
man or angel savingly to illuminate them."t So the Areopagites. 
Some tell us of Christ's preaching to them in purgatory ; so Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus ; some will have them instructed by the Sibylls, 
as the same author says^ elsewhere ; some talk of their commerce 
with the Jews, in which way no doubt some of them came to sa- 
ving acquaintance with God ; others say, that upon their worthy 
improvement of their naturals, God might and did reveal Christ to 
them and spirituals, because habenti dahitur.'l So Arminius. And 
of this Herbert frequently intimates his approbation, but with an 
evident contradicti^ to, and subversion of, his whole story about 
the sufficiency of natural religion. Besides, the bottom of this is 
a rotten Pelagian supposition of a merit in their good works : and 
that habenti dabitiir, spoken of in another case, after all the pains 
some are to stretch it, will not reach this case ; and after all we 
are left in the dark, as to the way wherein they will have super- 
naturals communicated to them. The late ingenious author of the 
Conference with a Theist, supposes a place provided for the sober 

* De coelesti ilierar- Ch. 9. j Strom. Lib. 6. 

- " To him ttiat hath shall be g-iven." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 299 



Pagans in another world, wherein they shall enjoy a considerable 
happiness,* and wrests what our Lord says to his disciples, John 
xiv. 3. of the many mansions that are in his Father'' s house, to 
favor his notion. But now as to all these suppositions and others 
of the same alloy, however their authors may please themselves 
in them, I tliink they are to be rejected. Nor is this from any de- 
fect of charity to the Heathens, but because they are supported 
by no foundation, either in scripture or reason. However, some of 
them are possible, yet generally speaking, none of them have the 
countenance so much as of a probable argument. The scripture 
proof, adduced by that last mentioned ingenious author, has no 
weight in it. There is no countenance given to it from the con- 
text, nor any other place of scripture, and I cannot approve of his 
boldness in stretching our Lord's words beyond what his scope re- 
quires. But these things have been considered at length by others, 
whom the reader may consult.f All these suppositions are at best 
but ingenious fancies, wherewith their authore may please them- 
selves, but can never satisfy others. Nor can they be of any ad- 
vantage to the Heathens. I think I have made it sufficiently ap- 
pear in the foregoing discourse, that they wanted means sirfficient 
to lead them to salvation, and so had no ground to support a rea- 
sonable hope of it. It is granted, even by those whose peculiar 
hypothesis in divinity lead them to be most flivorable to the Hea- 
thens, that they had no federal certainty of salvation ; and for any 
imcovenanted mercy, of which some talk, I know nothing about it. 
Scripture is silent. Reason can determine nothing in it ; and there- 
fore disputes about it are to be waved. It is unwarrantable curi- 
osity for men to pry into the secrets of God ; things that are re- 
'vealed do belong to ns. Where revelation stops w^e are to stop. 
Even Herbert himself dare carry the matter no further than a may 
be ; and what may be, may not be. 



CHAP. XIX, 

Wherein Herbert^ s Reasons for publishing his Books in Defence 
of Deism are examined and found rveak. 

THE learned Herbert, toward the close of his book De Reli- 
gione Laid, to justify the publication of his thoughts, as to a 
catholic religion, common to all mankind, mentions seven supposed 
advantac^es of this opinion, or so many pleas for Deism. What 
weight there is in them, we shall now consider. 

He introduces himself with a protestation that he published 
jiot his book with any ill design against Christianity, which he 



* Nicol. Confer. Part 2, pa^. 80. 

} See Anth. Tuckney, Appendix to his Sermon on Acts ir. 12. 



AN INatJIRY INTO THE 



hoiiors with the title of optima religio : But on the contrary says. 
That he aimed at establishing it, and intended to strengthen true 
faith, " Deniqne me animo adeo non optimcz religioni infoisOf 
" aut a vera fide alieno tractatum hunc edidisse testor ; ut utrarri' 
" qiie statuminare in animo habuerim,''^^ Sec. 

I shall not dive into his designs ; fof which he has long ago ac- 
counted nnto the only competent Judge. But of the design, or 
rather tendency of his books, we may safely judge. And as to 
this I say, that if it is granted, that the scriptures are the only 
standard of the Christian religion, which cannot modestly be de- 
nied ; I shall upon this supposition undertake to maintain against 
any who will defend him. That his books aim at the utter subver- 
sion of the Christian religion, that his principles overthrow entire- 
ly the authority of the scriptures, and are not only inconsistent with, 
but destructive to the essentials of Christianity. And 1 further 
add, that this is every where so obvious in his writings, that it will 
require a strange stretch of charity, to believe our author could 
be ignorant of it. 

Our author having told us what was not his design, proceeds 
next to condescend upon the reasons inducing him to assert this 
common religion. And 

1. He tells us that he maintains this common religion, " Qxiod 
" providentiam divinam^^^ &c. Because it " vindicates the uni- 
" versal Providence of God, God's principal attribute, whose dig- 

nity can never be suflSciently supported. Neither do any par- 
" ticular religion, or faith (to give you our author's own words. 

Fides quantimvis laxa) maintain this, so as to represent God's 

care of all mankind, in providing for them such common prin- 
" ciples as those contained in our catholic truths." 

Here our author teaches two things, and I think them both 
false. (1.) He tells us, "That his catholic religion vindicates the 
" universal providence of God, or serves to maintain its honor." 
This I think false. The foundation of it we have proved to be 
not only precarious, but false. For we have cleared, that his five 
articles did not universally obtain ; and further, that if they had, 
they were not sufScient to happiness. Yea, our author himself, 
after he has told us, that the univei sal providence of God cannot 
be maintained, unless we suppose him to have provided all his 
creatures, in the means necessary for obtaining their happiness, 
next informs us that he has provided man in no other means, save 
these five articles.f And lie further tells us in his words above 
quoted, that he dare not positively say they are sufficient, nor can 

* Herbert Relig. Laici, pag. 28.~«' In fine, I profess that I have published 
" this treatise with a mind so far from beiii^ hostile to the best religion, or 
^' averse to true faith, that I intended to have established both." 

iVt ReL Laici, pag;, 1. 4, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 301 



we be sure of it, since it depends upon God's secret judgments, 
which we cannot certainly know.* And we have heard Blount 
above own, That Deism is not safe, unless it be pieced out by 
some help from Christianity .f Well, is this the way our author 
asserts the honor of divine universal Providence, first to tell us, 
that its honor cannot be maintained without supposing a sufficient 
religion universally to have obtained, and then to tell us that he 
is not sure that ever there was such a religion ? Is not this the 
plain way to bring the universal Providence of God in question ? 

Again, 2dly, Our author teaches, " That no particular religion 
" can support the honor of universal Providence." This I take 
to be also false. The Christian religion asserts and proves, that 
God, who has created all things, preserves them, and governs them 
in a way suitable to their nature and circumstances, and in so fai^ 
clears the equity of God's proceedings with the Heathen world, 
in particular, as may satisfy sober men. It acquaints us, that God 
did, at first, provide man in a covenant security for eternal happi- 
ness, and in means sufficient for obtaining of it ; that man, by bis 
own fault, incapacitated himself for the use of these means, and 
forfeited the advantage of the covenant-security ; that God, in 
justice hath left the Heathen world under the disadvantage of that 
forfeiture ; that during the time he sees meet to spare them, he 
governs them, in such a way as is suitable to their lapsed state, of 
which we have spoken before. We confess we are not able to ex- 
plain all the hard chapters in the book of Providence, and solve 
every difficulty relating thereto ; but this affi3rds no ground for 
the denial either of God's general or special providence. As the 
difficulties about God's omniscience, omnipresence, eternity, &c. 
will not justify a denial of these attributes, or the existence of a 
Deity vested with them ; so neither will the difficulties about Pro- 
vidence justify a refusal of it ; and if this vindication of Provi- 
dence fail of giving satisfaction, I am sure Herbert's will never 
satisfy. 

What our author adds about his fides quantumvis laxa, which 
he supposes some to stand up for, and maintain as a sufficient re- 
ligion, I do not well understand. But yet since this expression is 
very often used in the writings of this author, in reproach of par- 
ticular religions, especially the Christian, which lays the greatest 
stress upon faith, it cannot be passed without some remark. That 
which our author seems to intend by this fides quantumvis laxUy 
or " faith how lax soever it may be," is a faith that consists in a 
general assent to the truth of the doctrines, without any corres- 
pondent iiifluence upon practice. And he would have us to believe 
that the Christian religion, or, at least, Christians, do reckon this 



* De Rel. Gentil. pa^. 217. 
t Oracles of Reason, pag\ 87. 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



suflicient to salvation. Tliis is a base and disengenuous calumny. 
And our author could not but know it to be such, if he was ac« 
quainted either with the scriptures, or the writings and lives of 
that set of Christians against whom this calumny is particularly 
levelled, who unanimously teach, that the faith that is available, is 
that which works by love, and is to be found only in them who 
are created m Christ Jesus to good works. If Herbert was a 
stranger to the one or the other, he was the unmeetest person in 
the world to set up for a judge and censurer of them. 

2. The next advantage that Herbert condescends on, of his 
catholic religion, is, Quod probam facultatem homini insitarum 
conformationem, usumqiie doceat. Nulla enini datur Veritas ca- 
tholka, quce non in foro interna describitur, rel non illuc saltern 
necessario reducitur.'^ That is, " This alone teaches man the 

due use and application of his faculties." But this is only our 
author's assertion. Christianity is no less consistent with the due 
use of our faculties and their application to their proper objects, 
than our author's religion. It destroys none of them, lays none of 
them aside, and does violence to none of them ; but restores, im- 
proves and elevates them to their most noble and proper use. 

Our author adds, for a confirmation of his assertion, that there 
is no catholic verity, but what either is inscribed in the mind, or 
what may be reduced to some innate truth. Whether there is 
any verity inscribed in the mind in our author's sense, I ques- 
tion. Mr. Locke has proven, that there is none such, and in par- 
ticular has evinced that our author's five articles are not innate 
truths, no not according to the description he himself gives of such 
notices. He examines the characters of innate truths given by 
our author, and undertakes to shew them not applicable to his five 
articles.f 

3. Our author tells us, he embraced this catholic religion, quod 
incontrove)^a a controversis distinguatjX &c. It is needless to 
repeat all our author's words here. ^Vhat he says is in short this, 
That " particular religion (and here he must be understood to 

speak particularly of Christianity) contains austere and fright- 
fill doctrines that prejudice some men of squeamish stomachs 
at all religion,'' (and is it to be wondered at, that men who 
have no heart to any religion, are easily disgusted ?) But our aji- 
thor has provided them with one that will not offend the most nice 
and delicate palate, as consisting of principles %iniversally agreed 
to ; which he supposes such persons will readily close with, and 
so retain some religion, whereas otherwise they would have none. 

* Herbert Rel. Laici, nag-. 28. 

t Loc'^ e's Essay on Human. Under. Book 1. Ch. § 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 

* " Because it disting-uislies uncontxoverted points from those vdiich are 
controverted." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 203 



Here our author evidently designs a thrust at the Christian reli- 
gion, and insinuates that it is stuffed with austere and horrid doc- 
trines. I know full well what are the doctrines he particularly 
sums at : the doctrines concerning the corruption of man^s nature, 
the decrees of Gody the satisfaction of Christ, are particularly in- 
tended. But if these doctrines are considered as delivered in the 
scriptures, or taught by Christians according to the scriptures^ 
what is there offensive in them ? What horrid or frightful ? 
v^I do indeed grant, that some Christians, through their weakness. 
Without any ill design, have so represented, or rather misrepresent- 
ed some of these points, particidarly concerning the decrees of 
God, as to give offence to sober persons of all persuasions. But 
as to this, they, and they only, are to bear the blame. As for the 
doctrines, What have they done ? Must the fault of the profes- 
sors be cast on the religion they profess ? This no reasonable man 
will allow to be just. 

I do likewise acknowledge, that whereas there are different senti- 
ments among Christians concerning some of these points ; and 
some of the contending parties have so unfairly stated, and foully 
misrepresented the opinions of their opposers, in the disguise of 
imaginary consequences, or of consequences, at least, denied and ab- 
horred by the maintainers of the opH)ions they oppose, so as to give 
some umbrage to this, startle weak men, and prejudice them against 
religion. This they do to expose their adversaries, and frighten 
others from the reception of their sentiments. For such I can 
make no excuse. The practice itself is scandalously disingenuous, 
and can admit of no reasonable vindication, and so fair an occasion 
being given, I cannot pass it without a remark. A notable instance 
of this sort I meet with in a book just now come to hand. The 
ingenious author of the short Method with the Deists, in a letter di- 
rected to Charles Gildon, newly recovered from Deism, cautions 
him against the Dissenters ; and to enforce his caution, presents 
him with such an account of their opinions, as is indeed suited to 
frighten the reader. He tells him that they maintain, " That God 
" sees no sin in the elect, let them live never so wickedly. They 
" damn the far greater part of the world, by irreversible decrees 
" of reprobation, and say, that their good works are hateful to 
God ; and that it is not possibly in their power to be saved, let 
them believe as they will, and hve never so religiously : They 
" take away free will in man, and make him a perfect machine. — 
" They make God the author of sin, to create men on purpose to 
damn them ; they make his promises and threatenings to be of 
no effect, nay, to be a sort of burlesqueing, and insulting those 
" whom he has made miserable, which is an hideous blasphemy."'^ 

* Lettfei- ^bjoined to the Dfeist's Manuel, page 22, 33. 



V 



304 



AN INQmRY INTO THE 



But to what purpose is all this said ? 1. Did not the writer know. 
That this is not a representation at all of the opinions maintained 
by the Dissenters, but of the consequences tacked to them by 
their adversaries ? Does he not know, that they detest and abhor 
these positions as much as he does, that they refuse these to be 
consequences of them ? Is it then candid to offer, that as their 
opinions, which they abhor, and which they will not allow to foDow 
upon their opinion ? Again, 2. Doth not this gentleman know that 
the principles to which he has tacked these consequences, are the 
Tery doctrines taught in the articles of the Church of England, 
imanimously maintained by all the great men of that church, till 
Bishop Laud's day ; which were preached by them in the pulpit, 
taught in the schools, and upon all occasions avouched as the doc- 
trine of the Church of England ; and, as such, to this very day 
are owned by no inconsiderable number of that church ? With 
what justice then, or ingenuity, can he call this the doctrine of the 
Dissenters ? 3. From whom does he expect credit to this disin- 
genuous account of the Dissenter's opinion ? Such as know them, 
will believe nothing upon the reading of this passage ; but that 
the writer either understood not the opinions he undertook to re- 
present, or that against his light, he misrepresented them, and so is 
never to be credited again, without good proof, in any thing he 
says of them. 4. Was it the author's design, to gain a proselyte 
to the opposite opinions ? This I believe it was. But this is the 
most unlucky way of management in the world ; for if his disciple 
is a man of sense, he will be shy of believing that such monstrous 
opinions can be received by a body of men, among whom, there 
must be owned by their worst enemies, to be not a few learned and 
sober. And if he find himself abused, upon search, may he not 
be tempted, not only to reject this account, but all that he receiv- 
ed upon the same authority ? When persons of sense, who have 
boen abused, are undeceived, they are wont ever after to incline to 
favorable thouglits of the persons and principles they were pre- 
judiced against ; and to suspect that cause of weakness, which can- 
not be supported, but by such mean and unmanly shifts, as this of 
representing the opposite opinion. 5. If the adverse party shall 
take the same course, what a fine work shall we have ? And to speak 
modestly, they want not a colourable pretence for a retortion. — 
But who shall be the gainers ? Neither of the contending parties 
surely : For men will never be beaten from their opinions by ca- 
lumnies that they know to be unjust. None will gain, save they, 
who are lying at the catch, for pretences to countenance them in 
the rejection of the Christian religion. It is none of my business 
to debate this controversy with this author. 

If he has any thing new to advance upon these heads, let him ad- 
vance it, he will find -antagonists in the Church of England, able 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 305 



perhaps to cope with him, though the Dissenters should fail. This 
gentleman had managed his opposition with more modesty and in- 
genuity, if he had attentively perused the learned Bishop of Sa- 
rum's discourse on the 17th article of the Church of England. — 
But I hope this author, upon second thoughts, when his passion is 
over, will be ashamed of what he has written. 

But now to return to Herbert and the Deists. If we abstract 
from these two abuses, and consider the doctrines of Christianity 
as represented in the scriptures, or according to them, there is no 
ground to charge them with any thing frightful, or of ill conse- 
quence to religion. Yea, I dare be so bold as to say. That if prac- 
tical religion, consisting in godliness, righteousness and sobriety, h 
any where to be found in the world, it is to be found amongst those, 
as likely as any where else, and in as eminent a degree, who have 
been trained up in the belief, and under the influence of those very 
doctrines, which some, and particularly Herbert, would persuade 
us to be so horrid, as to frighten men at once out of their wits and 
religion. If it be said, that this is not owing to the influence of 
these principles. I answer. This, at least, proves those princi- 
ples not inconsistent with practical religion, in as much as they, 
who believe them, are eminent in it ; and, if we enquire of them, 
what has influenced their walk, they are ready to attest, that the 
belief of these very truths has had the principal influence upon 
that effect ; and to ofl*er a rational account of the tendency of these 
doctrines to promote practical religion. 

Now we have wiped off the insinuated reproach, designed by 
our author, against the Christian religion. Let us next consider 
what there is in this plea. He tells us, his religion consists of 
incontroverted articles, and so will frigthen no body. But, 1. this 
is not true in fact, as we have demonstrated above. His articles 
have been controverted. The sufficiency of them has been be- 
heved by very few. Again, 2. Will our author say, That nothing 
is necessary, to religion, which is controverted ? Will the Deists 
undertake this point ? If so, their religion is lost, as is evident 
from what has been demonstrated above. 8. This no more proves 
our author's five articles to be a sufl[icient religion, than it proves 
one of them alone to be such. He who owns no more in religion, 
but this only, there is a God, may as well plead, that religion re- 
tains only what is incontrovertible. But the Deists will say, there 
are other points necessary. Well does not this give me an answer 
to their argument, when I say, there are other points necessary 
besides their five articles. 4. Whereas he would persuade us, that 
no man will scruple his religion : Is not this enough to make any 
reasonable man shy of admitting it, that its author and inventor 
dare not say positively, that it is sufficient to answer the purpose, 
for whirhit is designed, and that others undertake to demonstrate. 



306 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



that if it iii li usted to, it will prove a soul-ruining cheat ? In a word;, 
it is not worth the while to calculate a religion for thofse, who will 
admit nothing in religion, but what is incontroverted : for, in short, 
they are for no religion. And I think we have in particular evin- 
ced, that our author's five articles will be too hard in digestion for 
such delicate stomachs. 

4. Our author tells us, that he embraced this catholic religion. 
Quod concordicB communis subsirudionem agat, <Sx.^^ That is, 
in short, let all the world agree to the sufficiency of our author's 
five articles, and leave all other things to be rejected or received as 
trifles, not necessary to be disputed about, and then there is an end 
of allihe contests, then there is a foundation laid for everlasting 
peace, and the golden age will be retrieved, Jam redit et virgo 
redeunt, Satuniia regna.-f 

This trifle deserves rather pity than an answer. What ! will all 
the world agree that this religion is sufficient, while its inventor durst 
not say so ? 

5. He embraced it, ^^Quod authoritatem 7najestatemq; indubiam 
" reUgioni, et hierarchies inde politicBque conciliate' ^"C. That is, 
" because it conciliates respect to religion, to the ecclesiastical hie- 
" rarchy, and civil government." Religion will be respected, when 
it requires nothing but what is necessary. Church and state will 
be respected v/hen it punishes nothing but transgressions against 
incontroverted articles. 

But is not this to trifle with a witness ? The weakness of this 
plea is so obvious, that I may well spare my pains in exposing it. 
Will it maintain the dignity of rehgion to confine it to a number 
of articles, which for any thing we know, or the Deists know, may 
cheat us of our reward in the end, since they cannot positively 
assure us of its sufficiency, and we are positively sure it is not 
sufficient ? Will it maintain the honor of church officers, to ad- 
mit a religion, which subverts the very foundation of all respect to 
them, viz. The divine institution of their order ? As for the ad- 
vantage of it to the civil government, the Deists may offer it to 
the consideration of the next parliament, and they will consider 
whether it is proper to conciliate respect to the civil government. 

6. Our author embraced his religion, Quod adeo non moliat re- 
Uyi-ionem, tit ejus severitatis stimulum addat. That is, " It is so 
" f «r from favouring liberty in sin, that it urges harder to virtue, 
" (severe virtue) than revealed religion." There is no hope of 
pardon here upon the satisfaction of another. Men must work for 
their life, and when they fail, they must satisfy by their repent- 
ance. 



* " Because it lays a foundation for coiruiion concord." 
^ " Now Astra returns, the reign of Saturn returns." 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 303 



Well, but do they, who teach the necessity of satisfaction ex- 
chide repentance ? And if they make both satisfaction and repent- 
ance absolutely necessary, though each in its own order and place, 
to forgiveness, methinks they will yet have the advantage in point 
of severity. Again, but what if repentance will not satisfy ? If 
this is so, and our author seclude all other satisfaction, will not his 
religion lead men rather to despair than to virtue. 

7. Our author's last inducement was, Quod sacrarum lilerariun 
Jini ultimo intentioniq qiiadref, &c. That is, " because this cath- 

olic religion answers the ultimate design of the scriptures. All 
the doctrines taught there level at the establishment of these five 
" catholic verities, as we have often hinted ; there is neither sa- 
crament, rite or ceremony, there enjoined, but what aims (or 
seems to aim) at the establishment of these five articles." 

8. But is not this a notable jest. Our author w^oukl persuade 
us, That his religion answers the great end of the scrip- 
tures, better than religion, which the scriptures themselves 
teach. If our author says not this, he says nothing. If the end 
of the scriptures is not good, it is not for the honor of our au- 
thor's religion that it a^ees with it: If it is good, and the religion 
taught in the scriptures themselves, answer their own design best, 
why then, I would chuse that religion, and leave our author to en- 
joy his own : If he says, hiSy answers it better, then I would desire 
to know where the compliment lies, that he designed to the scrip- 
tures. But I desire to know further of the Deists, Whether do 
the scriptures teach any thing besides these articles, to be neces- 
sary T Where do the scriptures tell that these are sufficient ? Are 
divine institutions, sacraments, &c. necessary toward the compas- 
sing of the ends of religion T If they are not, how does it commend 
our author's religion, that it quadrates with the design of these in- 
stitutions ? If they are necessary and useful, this catholic religion 
is at a loss that wants them. I am sensible our author lias caution- 
ed against this, when he tells us, That they either do or seem to 
aim at this. I see that old birds are not caught with chaff. Now I 
have found it. This catholic religion, will really serve the pur- 
pose, that revealed truths and institutions do only seem to aim at. 
But after all, this is but sai/ and not iiroof. And I will undertake 
to shew against all the Deists under heaven, that the confinement 
of religion to these five articcles, as taught by the light of nature, 
is not only not agreeable to the principal design of the scriptures, 
but inconsistent with it. 

Thus I have considered the inducements which led Herbert to 
embrace this catholic religion, and found them wanting. And 
I must say, if this noble author had not been straitened by a bad 
cause, that is not capable of a rational defence, his learning, which 
is very considerable, could not but have afforded him better 
pleas. Charles Blount, in the close of his Religio Laici, tells us 



308 



AN mqUIRY INTO THE 



It was for the same reasons he embraced Deism, and copies after 
Herbert, with some httle variations. What he has, that our author 
has taken notice of in this place, will occur in the next chapter, 
where they are again repeated under another form. Men that 
have but Utile to say have need to husband it well, and make all the 
improvement of it that they can, 

CHAP. XX. 

Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for proving 
the sufficiency of their five Articles are examined, 

THE learned Herbert in an appendix to his Religio Laid, 
moves some objections against himself, but fearing after he has said 
all he can, some may remain unsatisfied still, he betakes himself to 
another course, and essays to dispute his opposers into a compli- 
ance with his sentiments by Queries. Of this sort he proposes 
severalw Charles Blomit concludes his Religio Laid in the same 
method, with this difference, that he has added other seven que- 
ries, making in all fourteen, and prefixed this title, Queries proving 
the validity of the five Articles. 

The arguments couched in these queries, in so far as they tend 
to prove the sufficiency of this catholic religion, are not new, but 
materially the same, which we have formerly considered. The 
method is indeed different, more subtle, and better suited to their 
great design. Direct proofs are less deceiving, and their weak- 
ness is more easy discoverable by vulgar capacities. Queries con- 
ceal the weakness of arguments, entangle, perplex and amuse less 
attentive minds ; and by them, the subtle asserters of a bad cause 
ease themselves of the trouble of proving their ill grounded as- 
sertions, (which yet, by all rules of disputing, belongs to them on- 
ly) and turn it over upon the defender. This is enough as to the 
method, to let us see how suitable it was to their purpose. 

The Queries proposed by Blount are the same with Herbert's, 
and he adds others which Herbert wants. Wherefore we shall 
consider them as proposed by Mr. Blount. But whereas some of 
them are to more advantage urged by Herbert, we shall offer these 
in Herbert's words, that we may overlook nothing, which has the 
least appearance of force in this cause. 

Query 1. " Whether there can be any other true God, or whe- 
" ther any other can justly be called Optimus maximvs, the 

greatest and best God, and common father of mankind, save He 
" who exercises universal providence, and looks so far to the good 

of all men, as to provide them in common and sufficient or cffec- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 309 



« tual means for obtaining the state of eternal happiness after this 
" life, whereof he has implanted a desire in their minds ? If the 
" laity or vulgar worship any other God, who does not exercise 
" this universal providence, are they not guilty of false worship, 
« or idolatry ? And if any one deny this common providence, is 
** he not guilty of treason against the divine Majesty, and of a 
" contempt of his goodness, yea, and of Atheism itself?" Thus 
Herbert."^ Blount proposes the same query, but more shortly, 
thus, " Whether there be any true God, but he that useth uni« 
" versal providence concerning the means of coming to him."f 

The design of this query is 'to prove the necessity of a catho- 
lic religion, or a sufficient religion common to all mankind, and to 
fix the black note of atheism upon all who deny it. The argu- 
ment whereby this is evinced is the very same, which we have 
examined above, as the Deists' first and great argument. What is 
added concerning universal Providence, we did consider in our 
answer to Herbert's first inducement to Deism. And so we might 
entirely pass this query as answered already, were it not for the 
seeming advantage given to it by this new dress, wherein it ap- 
pears. 

This query has a direct tendency to drive men into Atheism, 
and tempt them to lay aside all worship through fear of {Idling into 
idolatry. It is in itself self-evident, that if God has given all 
mankind, or to every man, means sufficient and effectual to lead 
them to eternal happiness, they must know of it, or, at least, there 
must be easy access for them to know it. With what propriety 
of speech can it be said. That the means leading to eternal hap- 
piness, are given to every man to be by him used for that end, if 
they know them not, or, at least, if the knowledge of tlicm be not 
easily accessible to all, who will apply themselves to an inquiry 
after them ? Nor is it less evident. That the suitableness, effica- 
cy and sufficiency of these means, for reaching this end, must be 
sufficiently intimated to them. If it is not so, how can men ra- 
tionally be obliged to use means which they do not know to be 
proper for compassing the end ? With what courage or confidence 
can any rational man, with great application, over many difficul- 
ties, use, and all his life continue in the use of means, concerning 
which he has no assurance, that they will put him in possession of 
the end ? After all this pains he may miss the end he bad in 
view. How can any reasonable soul please itself in such a course ? 
Can it be reasonably thought worthy of the wisdom and goodness 
of God, to give man the means of attaining eternal happiness, and 
means sufficient, and yet leave men in the dark as to the know- 
ledge of this. That they are designed fo^;, and sufficient to reach 

* Herbert's Relig. Laid, Appendix, pag-. 1, 2. 
I Blount Rel. Laici, pag-. 90. 



mo 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



the end for which they were given ? What can rationally induce 
men in this case, to give God the praise of his goodness, in afford- 
ing them these means, or to use them for that end, for which they 
were given, if this is hid from them ? It is then evident, That, if . 
God has afforded all men sufficient means of reaching eternal hap- 
piness, they must know this, or, at least, have easy access to know 
these means, what they are, and that they are designed to, proper , 
for, and will prove effectual to this end. And consequently, if 
men find not such means, after search, they have evidently reason 
to conclude, that God has left them without them, at least, that 
they want them in their present circumstances ; pince after all 
their inquiries they cannot find them, nor can they discover that 
any means, they know of, will be effectual to reach this end. 

This is evidently the condition of man at present, left to the 
mere light of nature. We have proved just now. That if God 
had given these sufficient means, every man must, at least, upon 
application, have had access to know them, and to know that they 
are sufficient. 

But, upon application, they find no such matter, and therefore -i 
have reason to suspect, that God has not given them these means, i 
if not positively to conclude that they are without them. Her- ' 
bert himself glories that he was the first who found out what these 
means were. They had escaped the knowledge and industry of 
the most learned and diligent before his time. And if so, certainly . 
the vulgar behoved to be at a loss about them. When he has s 
found them, he dares not be positive about their sufficiency : "Q«a?/i \ 
" etiam oh causam, neqiie ea sufficere (ad salutem, viz. ceternam} < 
" protenus dixerim,''^ says he.* Yea, he more than insinuates, 
that we cannot come to be positively assured of their sufficiency, 
and so must remain in the dark, since the determination of this de- ' 
pends upon the sentiments of God, which are known to none, as " 
he says. Now when a man so learned, so diligent, and so evident- ^ 
ly prepossessed with a strong inclination to favor any means that 
had a shew of sufficiency, found so much difficulty to hit upon 
any such, and did so evidently hesitate about the sufficierxy of 
these he had found ; must not the laity, for whom, upon all occa- 
sions, he pretends so much concern, liesitate more ? Yea, have 
they not reason evidently to conclude, that there are no such ' 
means provided for them ? 

But Herbert here teaches them, that none is to be acknowledg- 
ed as the true God, nor worshipped as such, who has not provided 
every man, in effectual and sufficient means for attaining eternal i 
happiness. Well may the layman say, " I neither know, nor can ' 

I ever be satisfied, that I have such means ; yea, I have th e J 

Herbert de Rel. Gent. pag. 217. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 311 



greatest reason to think that I want them ; if the good God had 
'* given them, he would not have mocked me, by concealing them, 
" and so precluding me from the use of them ; he would have 
" pointed me to them, and intimated their sufficiency, so as to 
" make it knowable to me, upon application, without which he 
" could never expect tliat I should use them : I have therefore 
" reason to conclude myself destitute of them, and so I will wor- 
" ship no God, since there is none that has provided me in the 
" means necessary to eternal happiness : For if I should, I would 
" be guilty of worshipping one, who is an idol, and not the true 
" God." Here we see where this gentleman's principles must in- 
evitably lead the poor man, either to direct Atheism, or to wor- 
ship one, whom he has reason vehemently to suspect to be merely 
an idol, and not the true God. 

Having thus discovered the dangerous tendency of this query, 
I shall now give a direct answer to it. And to it I say, That the 
God, who makes man, implants in his child's mind a desire of eter- 
nal felicity, intimates to him that he is made for this end, obliges 
him in duty to pursue this end, under a penalty in case he fail of 
it, and yet denies or leaves his child without the means that aie 
absolutely necessary for compassing it, antecedently to any fault 
upon the child's part, will scarcely obtain the titles of optimus 
maximus, great and good, or of a common Father, 

But the God who made man perfect, in his original state, and 
put him in the full possession of all the means that were necessary 
to obtain that end, whatever it was, for which he was made, and 
which he was hi duty obliged to pursue, loses not his interest in, 
and unquestionable right to the title of optimus maxirmis, great 
and good ; nor does he cease to be a common Father, and to act 
the part of such an one, if, when his children contrary to their 
duty, have rebelled against him, by their own fault dropped the 
knowledge of the end, for which they were made, lost the know- 
ledge of the means, whereby it is to be obtained, put themselves 
out of a capacity of using the means, or reaching thg end ; if, I 
say, in this case, he leaves them to smart under the effects of their 
own sin, and treats them no more as children, but as rebels, who 
can blame him 1 Does he not act every way as it becomes one, 
who by the best of titles is not merely a father, but the sovereign 
ruler and governor of all his creatures, to whom of right it belongs' 
to render a just recompence of reward to evxry transgressgr ? 
. Now, this is the case, as we have already proven. If the Deists 
will make their argument conclusive, they must prove that this is 
mot the case with man. And when we see this done, we shall then 
know what to say. Till then we ai-e not much concerned with their 
query. If they say, How can this be ? Can men by the light of 
jiature know how tliis <:ame to pass ? I answer, that it. is not the 



212 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



question, How it came to be so ? Bat whether, in fact, it be so ? 
That it really is thus, is before proven. The Heathens have con- 
fessed it. And though we should never come to be satisfied, how 
it came about, yet that it really is so, is enough to acquit God. 

Nor is God's universal Providence hereby everted, he still 
governs all mankind suitably to their condition. He rules those, 
whom of his sovereign and undeserved grace, he has seen meet to 
deal with, in order to return to his family, in a way of infinite 
mercy and grace. He governs the rest of the world, whom in his 
sovereign and adorable justice and wisdom, he hath left to lie un- 
der the dismal consequences of their own sin, in a way becoming 
their state. He provides them in all things, that do necessarily 
belong to the ends, for which they are spared. Further, he leaves 
himself not without a witness as to his goodness, in that he does 
good, gives them rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling 
their hearts with food and gladness. Which is sufficient to shew 
his superabundant goodness, that reaches even to the unthankful 
and evil, and gives them ground to conclude. That their want of 
what is further necessary, flows not from any defect of goodness 
on his part ; but from their own sins, of many of which their own 
consciences do admonish them. If God vouchsafes the means of 
recovery to any, they have reason to be thankful to sovereign 
grace. If God gives not, what he may justly refuse, who can in 
justice complain of him ? They must leave their complaint upon 
themselves, and acquit God. And while man is continued in be- 
ing, it will remain his indespensible duty to worship this God, who 
made him, spares him, notwithstanding of his sins, for a time, 
punishes him less than his iniquities deserve, and confers many 
other undeserved favours on him. Nor is he guilty of worship- 
ping an idol in doing so. 

'I'hus we have answered this query : And I might now propose 
to the Deists a counter query, " Whether they who make that 
necessary to the support of the universal providence of God, his 
goodness, and consequently his being, of which no man can be 
sure that it really is, which all men have reason to believe is not, 
and which most men, who have made it their business to consider 
the case seriously, do firmly believe not to be in being, may not 
reasonably be suspected to design the overthrow of these attri- 
butes of God, and consequently of his very being?" Thus Vani- 
nus endeavored to establish Atheism: he ascribes such attributes 
to God, and endeavored to fix such notions of his perfections, as 
could not be admitted, without the overthrow of other perfections, 
unquestionably belonging to him, or owned in any consistency 
with reason and experience. For he well knew, that if once he 
could bring men to believe God to be such an one, if he was, they 
would be brought under a necessity of denying, that there was 
any God. 



PRINXIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 313 



Query II. " Whether these means appear universally other- 
^* wise, than in the foresaid five catholic articles 

These gentlemen think they have, by their first query, suffi- 
ciently proved, that there must be a catholic religion : Now they 
will prove theirs to be it. But I have undermined the foundation, 
and so the superstructure falls. I have evinced, that there is no 
such sufficient catholic religion, by reason and experience. I have 
proved that the pretence of its being necessary to support the no- 
tion of God's providence and goodness, can never possibly per- 
suade any considerate man, to believe against his reason and ex- 
perience, against the sight of his eyes, and what he feels within 
himself, that he really is in possession of a sufficient religion, with- 
out revelation ; and consequently that the urging of this pretence 
can serve for nothing, if not to make men question the goodness 
and providence of God, and so his very being, to the overthrow of 
all worship and religion. I have moreover made it appear, that 
these five articles are not catholic, and though they were so, yet 
are not sufficient. 

Query III. " Whether any thing can be added to these five 
" articles or principles, that may tend to make a man more honest, 
" virtuous, or a better man ?" So Blount.f To this query Her- 
bert adjects a clause, viz. " Provided these articles be well ex- 
" plained in their full latitude. J And is not this the principal end 
of religion ? 

By the foregoing queries the Deists think they have proved 
the necessity of a catholic religion ; and that their five articles is 
the catholic religion. By this query they pretend to prove their 
religion sufficient. 

To this purpose they tell us, That their five articles are suffi- 
cient to make a man virtuous, honest and good ; that this is the 
principal end of religion ; and that nothing can be added to them, 
which can be any way helpful to this end. If by making a man 
virtuous, honest and good, they mean no more, than the Heathens 
meant by these words, who took them to intend no more, but an 
abstinence from the more gross outward acts of vice, contrary to 
the light of nature, with some regard m their dealings among men, 
to the common and known rules of righteousness, and usefulness : 
If, I say, this is their meaning, which I conceive it must be, then 
I deny that this is the principal end of religion. No man that un- 
derstands what religion means, will say it. The Heathens were 
influenced to this by other motives, than any thing of regard to 
the authority of the One true God. Their Ethicks, which en- 
joined this goodness, virtue and honesty, pressed it by considera- 

* Blount Rel. Laid pag". 90. Herb. Rel. Laici. Appendix. 
J Ibid. pag-. 91. ? Herb. Ibid. 

40 



314 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



tions of a quite different nature. Of God, his legislature, liis laws, 
as such, they took little or no notice, as observed from Mr. 
Locke before ; and therefore, whatever usefulness among men 
there was to be found in their virtues, they had nothing of religion, 
properly so called, in them. 

But if by making a man honest, virtuous and good, they mean 
the making of him inwardly holy, and engaging him in the whole 
of his deportment, in both outward and inward acts, to carry as 
becomes him, toward God, his neighbor and himself, with a due 
eye to the glory of God as his end, and a just regard to the au- 
thoriiy of God, as the formal reason of this performance of duty 
in outward and inward acts : If, I say, they take their words in 
this sense, I do own this to be one of the principal ends of reli- 
gion. But then I deny that ever any man, by their five articles, 
as taught by the light of nature, or by any other of the like kind, 
known only by the mere light of nature, was in this sense, since the 
entrance of sin, made virtuous and good. Nay, the moral Hea- 
thens were not led to that shadow of virtue and goodness, which 
they had in the sense beforementioned, from any regard to these 
five articles, as they are articles of religion ; that is, as they are 
principles directive as to the duty, which man owes to the One on- 
ly True and Supreme Being. 

And taking virtue, goodness, and honesty in this last sense, 
which is that alone wherein we are concerned, I have above proven 
the light of nature, and particularly these five articles, as known 
by it, utterly insufficient to make any man virtuous, honest and 
good. And have demonstrated not one, but man;?/ things besides 
what is contained in these five articles, however explained to the 
utmost advantage that can be done by mere unassisted reason, to 
be ahsolutehj necessary to the ends of religion. 

Nor will what Herbert has adjected mend the matter, viz. That 
his articles must he well explained in their full latitude. These 
words, if they have any sense, it is this, " It is not enough to be- 
lieve and receive our articles, as in general proposed, this will make 
no man good. He must not only, for instance, agree to it, that 
there is one Supreme God, and that he is to be worshipped by a 
virtuous life, but he must be acquainted with all the attributes of 
this God, necessary to be known, in order to the direction of his 
practice, and he must understand and be fixed as to the nature, 
measure and all other necessary concerns of these virtues that be- 
long to this duty." This is undeniably the meaning of this ex- 
pression, and this inevitably overthrows all that our author has been 
building. Were these five articles, in this latitude, universally 
agreed to ? Our author knew to the contrary. If any man should 
assert it, it were enough to make him be hissed off the stage, as 
either brutishly ignorant of the world, or impudently disingenuous. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 315 



Well then, our catholic religion is lost. Again, since the explica- 
tions belong as much to our author's religion as the articles them- 
selves, (for without them he confesses the articles not sufficient) 
how shall the poor layman ever be satisfied about them ? Have 
there not been as many, and as intricate disputes about them, as 
about the articles of revealed religion ? Where is now the boasted 
agreement ? Where is the uncontroverted religion ? What attri- 
bute of God has not been questioned, disputed and denied ? Have 
not his creation of all things, his Providence, &c. which of all 
others have the most remarkable influence upon practice, by many 
been denied ? Have not horrid notions of them been advanced by- 
some ? What will now become of men of squeamish stomachs, 
that can admit of no religion, but one that is smooth, and has no 
rugged controversies in it ? Why, poor gentlemen, they must part 
with our author's religion, and so be, as they were before, men of 
no religion* Upon the whole, we see that this query, designed 
to prove the Deists^ religion sufficient, has proved it a chimera. 
Query IV. " Whether any things that are added to these five 

principles from the doctrine of faith, be not uncertain in their ori- 
« ginal ?" So Blount.^ Herbert to this adds, « That though God 
" be true, yet the laity can never be certain about revelation : 
" For, (says he) how do ye know that God spake these words to 

the prophets ? How do you know that they faithfully repeated or 
" wrote what God spoke to them, and no more ? How do ye know 
" that transcribers have performed their part faithfully ? How do ye 
" know that that particular revelation made to a particular priest, pro- 
^* phet or lawgiver, concerns not only all other priests and law^givers, 
" but also the laity? Especially, how shall ye know this, if the matter 
" of revelation require you to recede from reason ?"f And here we 
have a proof of the fourth reflection, of his unfair treatment of the 
Christian revelation, which we made above. Chap. 13. For either 
he insinuates, that the scriptures teach things contrary to reason ; 
and if so, where was our author's ingenuity when he called it 
optima religio, and upon other occasions pretended so much res- 
pect to it ? Does not this justify our charge of disingenuity against 
him, in the first reflection we have made, in the place now referred 
to ? If he owns, that this is not the fault of the Christian religion, 
but of other pretended revelations ; then he justifies our fourth re- 
flection, wherein we charge him with jumbling revelations, true and 
false together, those that have, at least, seemingly fair pretences, and 
these that have none; and deceitfully charges upon all in cumulo, the 
faults peculiar to the worst. If this is not enough to persuade you 
to the truth of his protestation aboveraentioned, vis. that he design- 
ed no hurt to the Christian religion, he has an observation, with 

* Blount Rel. Laici, pag-. 91. 

t Herb. Rel. Laici, Appendix, pag. Si 



316 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



which he concludes this query, that will beat the persuasion of it 
into your brains, or else of somewhat beside ; and it is this, in his 
own words, " I think it worthy of the layman's observation, that 
" there is this difference betwixt the pretended revelations offered 
" to us, by the lawgivers, and those offered to us by priests, iiiter- 
" preters of the oracles God, of (under which notion he takes in all 
" prophets) whether they gave their revelations or responses for 
" hire, or merely to set off their own conceits (sive venules sive 
*^ nugivendi ;) that the revelations, which the lawgivers pretended 
" they had from heaven, and promulgated as such did usually make 
" the people more just and sociable, or agree better together ; 
" whereas the pretended revelatioiis of the priest and prophets, of 
" whatever sort, (or in his own words, Oraculoriim interpretibus 
" sive venalibus sive nugivendis) did usually make the people 
" more unjust or impious, and did divide them among themselves"^." 

Here is a rare observation, worth gold to the layman. He may, 
with more safety, receive and use the laws which Lycurgus, Solon, 
and the other Heathen lawgivers pretended they had from heaven ; 
and I would add Moses and his writings, but that I fear our author 
has cast him, because he set up for an interpreter of God's mind, 
and, upon some extraordinary occasions, acted the part of a priest : 
Our author, T say, would persuade him, that he may, with more ad- 
vantage, read these writings, than those of the prophets and apostles, 
or any other of the sacred writers, who were not lawgivers. It is 
true, both are to be looked upon but as pretended revelations, and 
so in effect cheats : but the lawgivers beguiled the people to their 
advantage ; whereas these rogues of priests, and others who joined 
with them, offered cheats that were hurtful to justice among men, 
and the peace of society. 

If any say, I am wresting our author's words and that certainly 
his comparison respects onlyt he Heathen lawgivers, and the Hea- 
then priests ; I answer If this is the meaning, it is altogether im- 
pertinent to the design of the query, which avowedly aims at 
ti.is, " That laymen, living among us, (for I do not believe our au- 
thor designed to send his book to the Pagans) can never be sa- 
tisfied as to the truth of any particular revelation," and all his su- 
bordinate queries do directly thrust at the scriptures ; and then he 
closes with this observation, as of the greatest moment to the de- 
sis^nofthe query. And therefore I cannot own, that I have done 
ay injury to our author, in the interpretation I have given of it; 
but I have spoke his meaning more plainly, than he thought con- 
venient to do. The next query is to the same purpose, and there- 
fore v/e shall purpose it, and answer both. 

Query V. " Supposing the originals true, whether yet they be 
" not uncertain in their explications ; so that unless a man read 



* Herb. Rel. Lalci, Appendix, pag-. 3, 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 317 



^* all authors, speak with all learned men, and know all languages, 
« it be not impossible to come to a clear solution of all doubts ?" 
Thus Blount.* Herbert, in his fifth query, speaks to the same 
purpose, he makes a huge outcry about the schisms and sects that 
are among us, and tells us plainly, that if we will adhere stiffly to 
revelation, we must of necessity get an infallible judge, to whose 
decisions we must submit in all things. He endeavours to prove 
that the scriptures will not decide the controversy ; and imperti- 
nently enough labours to disprove what none ever asserted ; that 
miracles wrought by the writers will not decide the differences 
about the meaning of their writings. For it is evident this query 
only respects the meaning of the revelation, as the former did its 
original. However, I knov7 who will thank our author for assert- 
ing the necessity of a living infaliible judge. If any think I have 
wronged our author as to this, let them inspect his book, and they 
will find I have done him justice. But for the satisfaction of those 
who have it not, I shall subjoin his own express words : he informs 
the layman, that he can never be satisfied about the meaning of 
this revelation, about which there are so many controversies, un- 
less either he can " Linguas cundas ediscere, scriptores cundos 
celebriores perlegere, dodiores etlam, qui non scripserunt, con- 
" sulere ; aut aliquis saltern controversiaruni illarum ex consensu 
" communi summus constitueretur judex. '^^l And then he goes 
on to prove, that there is no other possible way of deciding these 
differences, and coming to the meaning of revelation, but in these 
two ways pointed at in the words now quoted. The first is ridi- 
culous, and therefore we must be Deists or Papists. 

The design of these queries is obvious. They were afraid that 
their arguments might prove weak, which they had advanced for 
the sufficiency of their catholic religion ; and now, in effect, they 
tell the laity, that if they have a mind to have a religion at all, they 
must close with this which the Deists present them. And though 
we cannot satisfy you, may the Deists say, in all points, about our 
catholic religion, yet you must rest satisfied with it : for you can 
never be sure about revelation, either as to its original or meaning. 
Men brought to such a strait, since they cannot have such a reli- 
gion as they would wish, must take such as they can get. 

These queries directly attack revelation ; and so belong not to 
our subject. The learned defenders of revealed religion have con- 
sidered those trifles, and repelled the force of them, I shall only 
coiisider them, in so far as they belong to our subject, and offer 
the few following animadversions upon them. 

* Blount Rel. Laici, ubi supra, pag-. 91. 

+ " Learn all languages, read over all the most celebrated writers, consult 
** the most learned Tien, who have not written, or at least some supreme judge 
of all controversies must be appointed by common consent." 



318 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



. 1. I say, if the layman must, for the sake of those difficulties, 
quit revealed religion, he must part with the Deists' catholic reli- 
gion upon the same account. Herbert has told us, and it were in- 
deed ridiculous to say the contrary, that this catholic religion is 
comprehensive not only of their five articles, but their explications. 
Now, are there not as many, and no less intricate debates about 
this religion, as about that which is revealed ? Is not its sufficiency 
disputed ? Must not the layman read all books, converse with all 
learned men, &c. before he can rest satisfied in it ? Are there not 
intricate and perplexed disputes about the authority, extent, use, 
matter and manner of the promulgation of the law of nature ? 
Where shall the layman find the notices that belong to this religion ? 
Shall he turn inward, and find them inscribed upon his own mind ? 
So our author advises. But learned men say, and pretend to prove 
the contrary. And if most men look into their own minds, they 
will either say with the latter that they are not there ; or com- 
plain that they are become so dim that they cannot read them un- 
less some charitable Deist will afford them his spectacles. But 
when they have got them, what shall they do next for the explica- 
tions ? Are the explications written there too ? The Deists dare 
not say it. But these likewise are necessary, say the Deists, as 
we have heard from Blount and Herbert before. Shall the laity 
consult the Doctors about their meaning ? But do not Doctors 
differ ? Do not the Magi, and not a few learned Greeks, as Zeno 
and Crysippus, &c. teach Sodomy to be lawful ? Was it not the 
judgment of others, that a wise man ought " To steal, and com- 
mit adultly and sacrilege upon occasions, for none of these things 
are hy nature eviU^ So Theodorus, as Hesychius illustriously 
reports in his life.^' Does not Aristippus and Carneades, with 
many others, overthrow the whole law of nature, telling us, that 
nothing is naturally just or unjust, good or evil, but by virtue of 
some arbitrary law? Has not the same opinion been revived, 
broached and inculcated by Hobbes and others among ourselves*? 
Has not Plato long since observed in his Phedon, " That if any 

one name either silver or iron, presently all men agree what it is 
« that is intended ; but if they speak of that which is just or good, 

presently we are at variance with others, and among ourselves." 
In a word, he that will cast at revelation, for its controversies, is a 
fool to go over to natural religion, in expectation to be free of con- 
troversy. Thus we are at least upon a level with the Deists. 

2. If the layman, in defiance of the Deists' queries, may reach a 
satisfying assurance of the divine authority of the scriptures, where 
is then the necessity for his quitting revelation ? It will quite evan- 
ish. This, I say, he may have, without troubling his head about 



* See Dr. Owen on the Sabbath, Esercit. 3. § l^v 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 319 



impertinent queries of this sort, if he duly attend to that one, plain 
andrdtional direction given by our Lord, John vii. 17. If any 
man will do kis will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or. whether I speak of myself. 

The scriptures containing a full account of all the concerns of the 
Christian religion, are exhihited to him, and put in his hand by the 
church as a revelation from God, wherein all his concerns for eter- 
nity are wrapped up. I do not plead, that the testimony of the 
church is a sufficient ground for bottoming his faith. But this I 
say, that the testimony of the church is a sufficient ground for any 
man to judge and conclude firmly, that its pretensions are not con- 
temptible, and that it deserves the most serious consideration ima- 
ginable. But when I speak of the church, to whose testimony this 
regard is to be paid, we set aside, as of no consideration, a multitude 
of persons, whether of the clergy or laity, who do, in their practice 
visibly contradict the confessed rules of their religion. Such per- 
sons are scarce to be reckoned of any religion, and their testimony is 
of no consideration, either for or against religion. Nor do we re- 
strict the notion of the church to the representatives of it, much 
less to the Church of Rome, that monopolize this name. But I 
take it for that body of men, of whatever station or quality, who 
have received, and do act answerably to the Christian religion they 
profess, in some good measure at least. Now I say, the testimony 
of this church, or body of men, deserves great regard in this mat- 
ter. If we consider them, there are among them persons of un- 
tainted reputation, enemies themselves being judges. Not a few of 
them are of unquestionable judgment, deep discerning, solid learn- 
ing, and strict inquirers after truth. They are not a few but many. 
Nor are they confined to one nation or age, but such they have 
been in all ages, in all nations, where Christianity has obtained free 
access. Many of them are persons, whom envy itself cannot al- 
lege biassed, by external gain of one sort or of another. They are 
persons of different, nay cross civil interests, and of different out- 
ward conditions. Such are the persons who give this testimony. 
Again, if we consider their testimony, they bear witness to the 
Christian religion in all its concerns, its truth, sufficiency, useful- 
ness to all the ends of religion, with respect to time or eternity, 
and its efficacy for beginning, carrying on, maintaining, reviving and 
consummating such as sincerely receive it, in godliness towards 
God, righteousness towards men, sobriety with respect to ourselves; 
and that both as to inward principles and outward acts. Further, 
if we consider in what way they give in their testimony, the weight 
of it will appear. They bear witness to all this, not only by their 
words, but by their deeds, living in a conformity to it, parting with 
all that is dearest to them for it, cheerfully undergoing the greatest 
hardships, patiently bearing the most cruel torment?!, to the loss of 



320 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



life itself; and this they do neither upon mere constraint, nor on 

the other hand, from a rash and inadvertent neglect of a due regard 
to the unquestionable advantages of peace, health, life, and the 
other good things they part with ; but they venture upon doing and 
suffering freely and of choice, upon a sober, rational consideration 
of the advantage of cleaving to their religion, and of its being such, 
as will do more than compensate any loss they can sustain for it. 
Again, they bear witness to the concerns of this religion, as to a 
thing that they have not received upon bare hearsay, but upon 
narrow scrutiny, as that whereof they have the experience. They 
do not only give this testimony, when it is new to them ; but after 
long trial, when they are most sedate and composed, and when they 
can expect nothing of advantage by it, and when they must lay their 
account with contempt, opposition and loss. They give this testi- 
mony in whatever place they are, where it is honored, or where it 
is opposed. They give it with the greatest concern, and recom- 
mend this religion to those whom they would least deceive, even 
with their dying breath, when they dare not dis&emble, and that 
after a long trial, in the course of their lives, in the greatest variety 
of outward conditions, sufficient to have discovered the weakness 
of their religion, if it had any. They have made choice of this re- 
ligion, and adhered to it, under the greatest outward disadvantages, 
who were not prepossessed in its favor by education, but prejudiced 
against it ; and they have embraced it, where they had a free choice 
to accept or reject it, and advantages to tempt them to a refusal. 
They do not require an implicit belief as jMahometans do, but pro- 
voke to experience and trial. Now I dare boldly say, that this tes- 
timony is a better, more plain, obvious, and every way more justi- 
fiable ground of rational assent to the divine authority, truth, effica- 
cy, and sufficiency of the Christian religion, than can be given for 
the like assent, to any other particular religion whatsoever. Nay, 
there is m^re in this one testimony, as it is, or at least may be qua- 
lified with other circumstances^ discernible even by the most ordi« 
nary layman, here for brevity's sake omitted, (the urging this in its 
full strength, not being my present design) than can be offered for 
all the other religions in the world, natural, or pretending to revela- 
tion, were all that can be said for them altogether put in one argument. 
Any reasonable man cannot but think his eternal concerns safer in 
following this society, than any other whatsoever : There is not 
such another company elsewhere to be met with, as might be de- 
monstrated to the conviction of the stiffest oppose r. But this I 
plead not at present. I say not, that he should build his persua- 
sion of Christianity upon this testimony. All that I make of it is 
this. That he has reason to consider the scriptures, as thus attest- 
ed, as a book that has, at least, very plausible pretences to divini- 
ty, a book that deserves serious perusal, a book that cannot possi- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 321 



hly have any obvious and unquestionable arguments of imposture, 
and consequently, that it deserves to be read through, and fully 
heard before it is cast ; and that though there occur in it some 
things that he cannot presently understand, or whose use and value 
he cannot take up, he ought not therefore to be prejudged igalnst 
the divine authority of the book upon the account of them, till, at 
least, it is heard to an end. For, who knows not, that things which 
appear incredible, unreasonable, yea ridiculous, before their causes, 
order and design are understood, may, upon acquaintance Avith 
these, appear convincingly credible, useful, and every way reasona- 
ble ? This is all I claim of the layman at present, and he deserves 
not the name of a reasonable man who will deny it upon such a 
ground. And if the Deists had considered this, we had not been 
troubled with the many childish and trifling prejudices, wherewith 
their Oracles of Reason and other books are stuffed. Nor could 
they have been diverted from the serious consideration of the 
scriptures, by such pitiful exceptions. 

Well, the scriptures being put into tlie layman's hand, thus at- 
tested, he sets himself to the perusal of them, and such a perusal 
as the case requires ; looking to God for direction, he tries the 
means appointed by them, for satisfaction as to their divinity. 
While he is seeking light from God, in such a matter, he dare not 
expect it, if he continue in the neglect of known duty, or the com- 
mission of known sin, and therefore he studies to avoid them. He 
is resolved to follow truth, as it is discovered, and to subscribe to 
the scripture pretensions, if they give sufficient evidence of them- 
selves. Nothing is here resolved, but what is reasonable beyond 
exception. In pursuance of this just resolution, he reads them, 
and upon his perusal, what passages he cannot understand, or reach 
the reason of, he passes at present and goes on, till he see further 
what may be the intention of them. And he finds in plain and 
convincing expressions, his own case, and the case of all men by 
nature, clearly discovered, and urged upon him by this book ; the 
words pierce his soul, dive into his conscience, and make manifest 
the secrets of his heart, (known to none but God) manifest his sins, 
in their nature and tendency, and all their concernments. His 
conscience tells him, all this is true to a tittle, though he did not 
know it before, and none other save the heart-searching God, could 
know what was transacted within his heart, though overlooked by 
himself. The discovery not only carries with it an evidence of 
truth, which his conscience subscribes to ; but the words wherein 
it is expressed, bear themselves in upon his soul with a light, au-^ 
thority and majestv formerly unknown, evidencing their meaning 
and truth, and filling the soul with unusual and awful impressions of 
the m^ic^ty and anthcrit^ of the speaker. Thus h^hic. convinced 
and judged, and the secrets of his heart made manfest, he is 

4} 



3-22 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



forced lo fall down and acknowledge, that God is in the word of 
a truth. And he is ready to say, Gome see a book that told me 
all that ever I did in my life, is not this the book of God ? Thus 
he stands trembling under the sense of the wrath of God, due to 
him for his sins. He reads on, and finds in the same book a dis- 
covery of relief frequently proposed in plain passages. He is 
urged to an acceptance of it. The discovery carries along with 
it a full evidence of the suitableness, excellency, and advantage of 
the remedy : And by a gust of its goodness, or inward sense, he 
is drawn to an approbation. Upon this approbation the promised 
effects follow. His fears are dissipated, his hopes revived, his soul 
is made accjuainted with formerly unknown and (jod-becoming ex- 
pressions of the nature and excellencies of God, and going still on 
every day, repeated experience occur of the justness of the disco- 
veries the word makes of himself, the authority of its commands, 
faithfulness of its promises, the awfulness of its threatenings, none 
of which fall to the ground. He, in a word, has repeated expe- 
rience of the unparalleled efficacy of the whole, for the cure of 
his darkness, his corruption, &c. which despised other applications * 
and towards his advancement to a sincere and conscientious regard 
to all his duties, outw^ard and mward, toward God and man. 

Let us now but suppose this to be the case with the man upon his 
perusal of the scriptures, though with respect to innumerable souls, 
it is more than a bare supposition : upon this supposition, I say, 1 . 
The man has the highest security he can desire, that this book is, 
as to its substance, the very word of God, as certainly as if it were 
spoken to hi^n immediately by a voice from heaven. This cannot 
well be denied by any that understands this supposition. 2. I say, 
the man thus convinced may laugh at all Herbert's queries as im- 
pertinent. He finds God speaking by the word, and owning it for 
his. He needs not therefore trouble himself who wrote it, or whe- 
ther they were honest men who transcribed it, or whether they 
performed their part, whether it was designed for him ; and the 
like may be said of all his other queries. He will find no occa- 
sion for that distinction betwixt traditional or original revelation, - 
mentioned by Herbert, and insisted upon by Mr. Locke,* on 
what design i leave others to judge. In this case, as to the sub- : 
stance, it is all one to him, as if it had not come through another 
hand ; nor has he reason to suspect, that God would permit to 
creep into, or stand in a hook, which for the substance, he still 
owns and evinces to be from him, any thing of a coarser alloy, at , 
least any such corruption as might make it unworthy of him to own ^ 
it, or unsafe to use it to the design it was given for : Yea, he has 
the strongest security that the perfections and providence of God 



Locke's Essay ou Hum. Understand. Book 4. Cap. 18. § 6. 7. 8. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3-23 



if God can afford, to rest fully assured of the contrary. He has 
no reason to stumble at passages that he cannot understand, 
or such as by others are reckoned ridiculous, but rather to say 
with Socrates, in another case, *' AYhat I understand I admire, and 

am fully convinced to be every way worthy of its author ; and 

therefore I conclude what I understand not, to be equally excel- 
" lent, and that it would appear so if I understood all its cori- 

cerns." Finally, This supposition takes off all pretence of he- 
sitation about the meaning of the scripture?), as to what the man is 
particularly concerned in. The story of the necessity of aa in- 
fallihle judge, is built upon this supposition, That the scriptures 
are so obscure in matters necessarily relating to the faith and prac- 
tice of the vulgar, that they cannot be understood by them satis- 
fyingly, in the use of appointed means. This supposition is pal- 
pably false, contrary to scripture, reason and experience, as is 
evinced by our writers against the Papists, who fully consider 
their pleas, and particularly those which Herbert and the Deists 
have borrowed from them, who may be consulted by the reader. 

3. Thus far I have made appear, that the layman has the just- 
est reason in the world to look upon it as his duty, or the will of 
God, that he should give the scriptures such a perusal. 2. That 
in doing his will there is a way, at least, supposable, wherein he 
may reach full satisfaction in his own mind, in defiauce of the 
Deists' queries about the divinity of the scriptures, and reach the 
highest rational security, even that of faith, bottomed upon divine 
testimony, and inward sense or experience ; w hich Herbert him- 
self, upon all occasions, truly asserts to be the highest certainty. 
I shall now advance one step further, and assert, that this is more 
than a mere supposition, that it is matter of fact, that they, who 
do receive the scriptures in a due manner, especially among the 
laity or illiterate, do find and rest upon this ground in their persua- 
sion. Upon this ground it was alone, that multitudes did at first 
receive it, and for it reject tlie religions they were bred in ; and 
not as the Deists imagine, upon a blind veneration to teachers, 
priests or preachers, whom by education, they were taught to ab- 
hor ; And upon this ground they still do adhere to it, and receive 
it as written in the scriptures. The words of Mr. Baxter, as I 
find them quoted by Mr. Wilson (for I have not seen Baxter's book 
in answer to Herbert de Veritate ) are remarkable to this purpose, 
" I think, says he. That in the very hearing or reading, God's Spi- 
" rit often so concurreth as that the will itself should be touched 
" with an internal gust or savour of the goodness contained in the 
" doctrine, and at the same time the understanding with an inter- 
" nal irradiation, which breeds such a sudden apprehension of the 
" verity of it, as nature gives men of natural principles. And 1 



324 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



" am persuaded, that this increased by more experience and love, 
« and inward gusts, doth hold most Christians faster to Christ, 

than naked reasonings could do. And were it not for this, un- 
< * learned ignorant persons were still in danger of apostasy, by 
' * every subtle caviller that assaults them. And I believe that all 
* * true Christians have this kind of internal knowledge, from the 
** suitableness of the truth and goodness of the gospel to their new- 

quickened, illuminated, sanctified souls."* The apostle tells us, 
God 7vho commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined 
into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of 
God in the face of Jesus Christ. — If the Deist say, How proves the 
layman this to me ? I answer, That is not the question. For the 
design of the Deists in these queries, is to prove, that the hymm 
cannot be assured about the original and meaning of revelation in 
his own mind, and so must close with their catholic religion. Now 
in direct contradiction to this, I say, here is a ground to stand up- 
on. And if he has this ground, even a sober Deist must allow 
he has no reason to be moved from it, but must fully know that the 
doctrines are of God. And so I have overthrown the design of the 
query. As for the Deists' question. How he proves it to others ? 
it is impertinent. It is not reasonable to expect, that every com- 
mon man can stop the mouths of gain-sayers. It is enough for him 
if he can give a reason, which is good, and must be owned such in 
itself. If the Deist questions matters of fact, that he finds matters 
so and so ; I answer, A blind man may question whether I see this 
paper now before me ; and yet I have good reason to believe it is 
there, though I should fail of convincing him. 

If the Deist says, I have perused the scriptures, and found no 
such effect ; I answer, in matters of experience one affirmative 
proves more than twenty negatives ; unless the application is in 
all respects equal, and the effect depend upon a necessary cause : 
For where a voluntary agent is the cause of the effect, there it 
does not necessarily follow upon the like application. But to wave 
this general, which would require more room to explain, than I can 
allow it in this place, I say further, to the complainer. Have you 
given the scripture such a perusal, as I have proved in a way of 
duty you are obliged to do? Have you used the means, in so far, 
at least, as is possible for you ? Have you sought, have you waited 
for God's guidance and preservation from mistake, and from unjust 
prejudices against him, his works, his word, (if this be such) and 
his ways ? Do you carefully study to avoid what may reasonably 
be thought, even by a considerate Heathen, to obstruct the grant 
of the assistance desired from God ? Do you carefully avoid known 
sin ? Do you endeavor the performance of what you know to be 
duty ? Are you resolved to follow in practice where light leads ? If 

* Baxter's Animad. on Herbert de Verit. pa^^e 135. quoted by M. J. Wilson, 

Scriptnies interpieter asserted. AppendLx page 20. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. S25 



you dare not frankly answer, you have no reason to complain. For 
my own part, I arn persuaded, that in fact, none who have done his 
will even thus far, have reason to table a complaint against the 
word. Others who take a quite contrary course, are unreasonable 
in the complaint. Disputes about what might be the case, upon 
supposition of a person's doing all, that in his present circumstan- 
ces he is able to do, and yet miss of satisfaction as to the divine 
authority of the woid, until the subject of this question be found, 
I think not myself concerned in, at least in a controversy with the 
Deists. It is unreasonable to question the scripture's authority, or 
the evidence of it, upon suppositions that never were in being, and 
I am persuaded, never shall have a being. 

But these things 1 leave. This dispute lies wholly out of our 
road. But I have been obliged to this digression, in pursuit of the 
Deist's impertinent queries. I say impertinenty because, were all 
granted that is aimed at in these queries, it will not avail one rush, 
towards the proof of the point the Deists are on, viz. ihe validity 
of their religion : For were revealed religion uncertain, is it a good 
consequence, that therefore the Deists' religion is certain ? What 
I have said in defence of revealed religion, I would have to be look- 
ed upo:i only as a digression, and not as a full declaration of my 
opinion ; much less would I have this understood as the substance 
of what can be pleaded on behalf of that blessed book that has 
brought life and immortality to light. This is not the hundredth 
part of what even I could say, were this my subject. And others 
have said, and can plead much more than I am able. However, 
this I owed to the truth of God. Such as would see all these pre- 
tences against revelation, repelled, are desired to consult those, who 
designedly treat of this subject. 

There are other things in these queries now animadverted upon, 
that deserve rather contempt than an answer. In particular, it is 
supposed, as one of the prii^cipal foundations of those two queries, 
now under consideration, That a man cannot reach certainty in his 
own mind upon solid grounds, and rationally acquiesce in it as such, 
unless " he knows all that can be said against it, read all books, con- 
" verse with all learned men, &c." than which there is not a more 
extravagant expression in Bevis and Garagantua. Admit it, and 
I shall demonstrate against any that will undertake it, that nothing 
is certain. I cannot but admire that so learned a person as Her- 
bert could use such an extravagant supposition. But what will not 
a bad cause drive a man upon ? This confirms what is ordinarily 
observed, that there is no opinion, however unreasonable, but has 
some learned man for its patron, if not inventor. 

We shall now go on to the rest of the queries, which will be of 
more easy dispatch. That I have dwelt so long upon these two, 
is out of regard to revelation and its honor, and not from any weight 
in the queries. As for them, this alone had been a sufficient an- 



326 



AN INaUIRY INTO THE 



swer, which I propose in a wav of a counter query, and conclude 
with it — " If a layman that is illiterate cannot be satisfied as to the 
" truth of revealed religion, how doth this prove the Deists' five 

articles to be a sufficient and good religion." 

Query VI. " Supposing all true in their originals, and in their 
" explications, whether yet they be so good for the instructing of 
" mankind, that briug pardon of sin upon such easy terms, as to 
" believe the business is done to our hand ?" And, 

Query VII. " Whether this doctrme doth not derogate from \ir- 
" tue and goodness, while our best actions are represented as im- 

perfect and sinful, and that it is impossible to keep the ten com- 
" mandments, so as God will accept of our actions, doing the best 
*' we can ?" Thus Blount gives us Herbert's sixth query in iwo.^ 
There is no material difierence in Herbert, save only that he harps 
iipon the old string, and spends himself in bitter invectives against 
the scripture doctrine about the decrees of God, of which we have 
said enough before. And therefore I think it needless to burthen 
thi? paper with his words. 

The two former queries struck at scripture revelation itself; these 
two strike at the matter contained in the scrtplures. And here 
there is a double charge laid against the doctrine revealed in the 
scriptures, as black as hell can invent, and as false as it is black. 
The sixth query charges it with favoring sin, by bringing pardon 
upon too easy terms ; and the seventh charges it with derogating 
from virtue. 

For an answer to both, I might oppose experience. Sin is no 
where by any so opposed, virtue no where so sincerely cultivated, 
as among those who sincerely receive the dcctrine of satisfaction, 
and believe the utmost as to the Inahility of man in his present fal- 
len case, without supernatural assistance, and gracious acceptance, 
to please God. Dare the Deists compare with them in this respect? 
If they should, I know what would be the issue, if the judge had 
conscience or honesty. A Socrates, Seneca or Plato, deserves not 
to be named in the same dsy with the meanest serious Christian, 
that believes these doctrines, either witii respect to pidy toward 
God, or duty toward man. 

But as to the first charge, I say the ground of it is false ; the 
query is disingenuous and deceitful. The ground of it is a suppo- 
sition, that revelation excludes the necessity of repentance. This 
is manifestly false : Both Herbert and Blount knew it to be false ; 
and could not but do so, if ever they read tlie Bible. And the que- 
ry comparing revelation upon this known misrepresentation, with 
natural religion, is shamefully disingenuous. Let the query be, 
Whether it is more favorable to sin, to say, it is not to be pardon- 
ed without a satisfaction to justice by Christ, and repentance upon 

* Blount Rel. Laici, pag\ 91. 92. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 327 



our part, as revelation teaches ; or, that upon our repentance mere- 
ly, God is obliged to pardon it, as the Deists say ? Now, I leave it 
to the Deists to answer this. 

As to the second charge, revelation derogates no tiling from vir- 
tue. It teaches indeed that our best actions are imperfect, and he 
knows not what perfection means, or what is required thereto, that 
will deny it. It teaclies that then who are in the flesh cannot please 
God. It talks at another rate than Herbert, of the condition of 
sinful man, as to acceptance with God. He gives him a direction, 
" Cum honum pro virili pntstasy mercedem a bonitate ilia supre- 

mn pete, exifre, habe; quo pacta revera sapies.^^"^ That is, "Man- 

fully perform your duty as you can, and (whatever sin remain) 
" ask, demand, and have your reward. This is the way to be truly 
" wise." This petulent advice the scripture does not justify, and 
sober reason reprobates. Where sin intervenes, whatever the sin- 
ner does, in way of obedience, 1 conceive it will be as good wisdom 
as our author te-iches him, to fse very sober with his demands. But 
to return : Revelation, by teaching man's inability, doth not hin- 
der him from virtue ; but takes him off from his own strength, 
which would fail him in the performance, and leadii him wiiere he 
may get strength, and where innumerable persons have got strength 
to perform duty acceptably ; and it points to the only ground, 
whereon sinful and imperfect obedience can be accepted with, or 
expect a rewai d from God. 

Query VIII. " W'hether speaking good words, thinking good 
" thoughts, and doing good actions, be not tlie just exei cise of a 
" man's life ! Or that without embracing the foresaid five princir 
" pies or fundamentals, it be impossible to keep peace among men, 
" that God may l>e well served ?" Thus Blountf This is Her-, 
bert's seventh and last query, and he only adds one clause to it, 
wanting here ; " Whether the layman may not spend his time bet- 
" ter in those exercises mentioned, than if he employed it in de* 
" ciding controversies he does not understand."."]; 

The supposed necessity of the layman perplexing himself with 
controversies, at which Herbert here aims, in case he see meet to 
embrace revelation, we have above weighed and cast. But as to 
the query itself, it is utterly impertinent. For this is the question 
they should have proposed, " Whether their rehgion is sufficient 
" to bring a man to these just exercises, and to maintain peace in 
« society^" And not as they propose it, " Whether these exer- 
" cises be in themselves good?" which nobody denies: let this be 
the question, and we answer negatively. For this we have given 
sufficient reasons above. 



* Herbert dc Veritate, pag-. 108. 
i Blount Kel. Laici page 92. 



j Herb. Rel. Laici, Appendix. 



328 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



Query IX, " Whether the foresaid five principles do not best 
" agree with the precepts given in the ten commandments, and 
" with the two precepts of Jesus Christ, vis. To love God above 
" all, and our neighbour as ourselves ? as well as with the words 
" of St. Peter, That in every nation he that feareth God, and work- 
eth righteousness is accepted of God."^ 

This query is the same with Herbert's seventh and last persua- 
sive to Deism, which we have answered above. It is falsely sup- 
posed that revelation teaches, that the knowledge of the ten com- 
mands, or Christ's summary of them, is sufficient to salvation. 
Yea, revelation teaches expressly, that no man can practice them 
without grace from Christ, and that there is no other way of salva- 
tion but by faith in him. Again, it is falsely supposed, that the 
agreement of these articles with (that is to say, their not contradict- 
ing) these commands, proves them a sufficient religion. This ar- 
gument, if it proves any thing, proves too much ; for it will prove 
any one of them alone to be sufficient. If the Deists mean that 
their five articles, not only are not inconsistent with, but sufficient 
to bring men the length required by the ten commands, our 
Lord's summary of them, or to fear God and work righteousness, 
as Cornelius did : I answer negatively to the question, they can 
bring no man to this. Cornelius, of whom Peter speaks, had em- 
braced the Old Testament revelation. What Peter speaks of men 
of all nations being accepted with God, relates to the discovery God 
had made to him of his design to admit men of all nations promiscu- 
ously to acceptance with him through the gospel revelation : And 
consequently, that the opinion hitherto received by Peter and 
other Jews, of the continued confinement of revealed religion and 
its privileges to Israel, was a mistake. So that this place helps 
not the Deists, if it is not cut off from its scope and cohesion, or in- 
terpreted without respect to it. This way of interpretation of 
scripture is not safe. I know not where Mr. Blount learned it ; 
but I can tell him where there is a precedent of it — Matt. iv. And 
if the Deists have a mind to follow that precedent, they shall not 
be followed by me. 

Query X, " Whether the doctrine of faith can by human reasoa 
" be supposed or granted to be infallible, unless we are infallibly as- 
" sured, that those who teach this doctrine do know the secret coun- 
« selsof God."t 

To this I answer, That I am sufficiently secured as to the infal- 
lible certainty of the doctrine, if I have received the scriptures upon 
the ground above-mentioned, without supposing any who now teach 
it, to have any further acquaintance with the secret counsels of 
of God, than the word gives them. 



* Blount, lb. page 92, 93. 



J Blount, Rel. Laici, pag. 93- 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 329 



Queri/ XL " Whether all things in tlie scriptures, (besides the 
" moral part, which agrees with our five principles) such as pro- 

phecf, miracles and revelations, depending on the history, may 
" not be so far examined, as to be made appear by what authority 
" they are or may be received 

I answer, Revelation, in all its parts, is capable to stand the test 
of the strictest trial, provided it be just, and be managed as becomes 
it. But I must tell the Deists one thing in their ear. That if the 
scriptures once evince themselves to be from God, by sufficient 
evidence, they are obliged, upon their peril, to receive all that it 
teaches them, though they cannot prove it by reason ; nay, nor 
explain it. But what if any revealed doctrine be contrary to rea- 
son ? Upon the foregoing supposition, this query cannot be excus- 
ed of blasphemy, but is highly impertinent and unreasonable. 

Queri/ XIL " Whether in human reason any one may, or ought 
" to be convinced by one single testimony^ so far as to believe things 
*' contrary to, or besides reason ?"f 

One single testimony is writ in a different character in the que- 
ry, perhaps to give us to understand, that by it is meant the testi- 
mony of the revealer, God. And it cannot reasonably be under- 
stood of any other : For upon no other single testimony save that 
of God, is an assent to revelation demanded, or pleaded for, by 
those he opposes. 

This being premised, I say this query consists, and is made up 
of three as impious suppositions as can enter the thoughts of any of 
the sons of men ; besides that they are mutually destructive of one 
another. 1. It supposes that the one single testimony of God is 
not a sufficient warrant for believing whatever he shall reveal. 2. 
It supposes that a revelation come from God may contain things 
really contradictory to our reason. 3. It supposes that the single 
testimony of God is not a sufficient ground to believe things that 
are besides our reason, though they be not contrary to it, that is, 
truths, which we cannot prove by reason, or about which there are 
some difficulties that we cannot solve. Take these three impious 
suppositions out of the query, and it has no difficulty in it. If once 
we suppose a revelation to be from God, we must lay aside the se- 
cond supposition as impossible, vis. That it can contain any thing 
really contrary to reason. Set aside this, which makes the query 
felo de se, destroy itself, and let the question be proposed. Whether 
we may believe upon the single testimony of God whatever does 
not really contradict our reason, though it contains some difficulties, 
which we cannot solve ? And then I say, it is impious to deny it. 

Query XIII. And Jastly, " Whether, if it were granted they had 
" revelations, I am obliged to accept of another's revelation for the 



« Blount's Rel. Laid, pa^. 93. f Ibid. pas^. 9 i. 

42 



3:^0 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 

" ground of my faith ? Especially if it doth any way oppose these • j 
" five articles, that are grounded upon the law of nature, which m 
" God's universal magna charta, enacted by the All-wise and Su- * 
" preme Being, from the beginning of the world, and therefore not i i 
" to be destroyed or altered by every whistling proclamation of an i 
" enthusiast."^ j 
This query is of the same alloy with the former. To it we an- i 
swer shortly. The Christian revelation, (in others we are not con- i 
cerned) exhibits matters of universal concernment, upon evidence ; 
of their divinity, capable to satisfy those who now live, as well as - 
those to whom they were originally made ; and so are impertinently 
called another's revelation. And we are obliged to receive it as the ^ 
ground of our faith, and rule of our practice as much as they. The 
supposition that is added, that it contains doctrines or precepts con- 
trary to the law of nature, is impious and false. What he adds 
further about the " whistling proclamations of enthusiasts," if it is 
not applied to the sacred writers, we are not concerned in it. If it 
is applied to them, First, It is false, that they taught any thing con- 
trary to the law of nature. Secondly, It is impious to call them, in 
way of contempt, enthusiasts ; or, at least, it is intolerably bold for 
any man to call them such, before he has proven it ; which he ne-. 
ver did, nor will all the Deists on earth ever be able to do. Third- 
ly, It was rude and unmannerly to treat them with so much con- 
tempt, especially without argument proving the charge, whom the 
whole authority of the land, all the persons vested with it, and the 
body of the people, respect as men infallibly directed of God. 
Fourthly, It was disingeimous to treat them thus, after such pre- 
tensions as our author had made of respect to them, in this and his 
other books. 

Finally, Mr. Blount, instead of a fourteenth query, concludes 
with the testimony of Justin Martyr, as probative of his point. 
Kis words run thus, " Finally, submitting my discourse to my im- 
" partial and judicious reader, I shall conclude with the saying of 
" Justin Martyr, ApoL cont. Triphon, page 83. " That all those 
*' who lived according to the rule of reason, were Christians, not- 
" withstanding that they might have been accounted as Atheists ; 
" such as among the Greeks Were Socrates, Hieraclitus, and the 
" like ; and among the Barbarians, Abraham and Azarias : For 
" all those who lived, or do now live, according to the rule of reason, 
^' are Christians, and in an assured quiet condition."! 

As to the testimony of Justin Martyr, it is not probative with 
us ; though we honor the fathers, yet we do not think ourselves 
obliged to submit to all their dictates. This is said, but not pro- 
ven by him, either by scripture or reason. And I fear not to say, 

ElouHt's Rel. Laid, pag-. 94. , ; Blount's Rel.Iiaici, page 94, 95. 



PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 331 



It 5s more than he or any other can prove. Abraham is imperti- 
nently classed amongst those who wanted revelation ; Socrates and 
Hieraclitus, in so far as they lived according to reason, are assured- 
ly praise-worthy, and upon this account are not to be reckoned 
Atheists. That they were Christians, I flatly deny. Nor can it 
foe proven from scripture or reason, that their condition is assured- 
ly quiet. And further than this I am not concerned to pass any 
judgment about their state at present : What it is that day will 
manifest. 



END OF THE INC^UIRT. 



AN 



E S S T, 



CONCERNING THE 

NATURE OF FAITH? 

OB, 

THE GROUND UPON WHICH 
FAITH ASSEXTS TO THE SCRIPTURES 

WHEREIN 



THE OPIlflON OP THE RATIONALISTS ABOUT IT, IS PROPOSED, AND 
EXAMINED, ESPECIALLY AS IT IS STATED BY THE 
LEARNED MR. LOCKE, IN HIS BOOK ON 
HCMAN UNDERSTANDING. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



ALBANY: 
PUNISHED BY H. C. SOUTHWICK. 

No. 73, STATE-STREET. 
1812. 



AN ESSAY, 4rc. 



CHAR L 

Containing some general Remarks concerning KnowledgCy 
Faith, and particularly divine Faith, and that both as to 
the faculty and actings thereof. 

ALL knoAvledge is commonly, and that not unfitly, 
referred to the understanding or intellectual power of 
the mind of man, which is conversant about truth. Our 
assent to, or persuasion of any truth is founded, either 
1 . Upon the immediate perception of the agreement or 
disagreement of our ideas, and so is called intuitive know- 
ledge. Or 2. It results from a comparison of our ideas 
with some immediate ones, which helps us to discern 
their agreement or disagreement; and this goes under 
the name of rational knowledge. Or 3. It leans upon the 
information of our senses, and this is sensible knowledge. 
Or 4. It depends upon the testimony of credible wit- 
nesses. And this is faith. 

Faith again, if it is founded upon the testimony of an- 
gels, may be termed angelical; if on the testimony of 
men, human ; and if it is founded on the testimony of 
God, it is called divine faith : It is of this last we design 
to discourse, as what particularly belongs to our present 
purpose. 

When we speak of divine faith, we either mean the 
faculty or power whereby we assent unto divine testi- 
mony ; or the assent given by that power. Both are 



336 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



signified by that name, and faith is promiscuously used 
for the one or the other. 

Faith, as it denotes the faculty, power or ability of 
our minds to perceive the evidence of, and assent to di- 
vine testimony, is again either natural or supernaturaL 
That naturally we have a faculty capable of assenting 
in some sort to divine testimony, is denied by none, so 
far as I know. But that ability whereby we are at least 
habitually fitted, disposed and enabled to assent in a due 
manner to, and receive with a just regard, the testimony 
of God, no man by natm-e has. This is a supernatmal 
gift. 

Several questions I know are moved concerning this 
ability. It belongs not to my subject, neither doth my 
inclination lead me to dip much in them at present. I 
shall only suggest the few remarks ensuing. 

1. It seems unquestionably clear, that man originally 
had a power, ability or faculty capable of perceiving, 
discerning and assenting to divine revelations upon their 
proper evidence : For it is plain, that God did reveal 
hhnself to man in innocency, and that he made man ca- 
pable of converse with himself. But if such a faculty, 
as this we speak of, had been wanting, he had neither 
been capable of those revelations, nor fitted for converse 
with God. 

2. It may most convincingly be made out, that all our 
faculties have suffered a dreadful shock, and are mightily 
impaired by the entrance of sin, and the corruption of our 
nature thereon ensuing; and particularly our under- 
standings are so far disabled, especially in things per- 
taining unto God, that we cannot in a due manner, per- 
ceive, discern or entertain divine revelations upon their 
proper evidence, unto the glory of God, and our own 
advantage, unless our natures are supernaturally renew- 
ed. But this, notwithstanding, the faculty of assenting 
to divine testimony is not quite lost, though it is impair- 
ed and rendered unfit for perfomiing its proper work in 
a due manner. I knovr none \^ ho asserts, that any of 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 337 



bUr faculties were entirely lost by the fal].=* In renova- 
tion our faculties are renewed, but tliere is no word of 
inipIantiFit; new ones. It is certain, unrenewed men, such 
as Balaam and others, have had revelations made to them, 
and did assent to those revelatif)ns. Nor is it less clear^ 
that the devils believe and tremble, 

3. Wheti:er men, in a state of nature, whose minds 
are not renewed, may not so far discern and be affected 
by the characters and evidences of God impressed upon 
divine revelations, particularly the scriptures, wliere 
those evidences shine brightly, as thereby to be obliged, 
and actually drawn to give some sort of assent into the 
testimony of God, I shall not positively determine : 
Though the affirmative seems probable to me. The 
impress of a Deity is no less evident on the scriptrn es 
than his other works. He has magnijied this ivord above 
all his name. Besides, I do not see, how the vei y facul- 
ty itself can be tliougljt to remain, if it is not capable of 
discerning any thing of God, where he gives the most 
full and convincing evidence of liimself, as unquestion- 
ably he doth in tlie scriptures. Nor do I doubt but mul- 
titudes of sober persons, trained up within tlie chrn ch, 
and thereby drawn to a more attentive and less prejudi- 
cial perusal of the scripture revelation, do, upon sundry 
occasions, find their minds affected with the evidence of 
God in them, and thereby are drawn to assent to them 
as his word, though not in a due manner, and that even 
where they remain strangers unto a work of renovation. 
And I am sure, if it is so, it Avill leave the rejectors of 
the scriptures l emarkably without excuse. 

4. Whether some transient act of the Spirit of God is 
always necessary upon the mind, to draw forth even 
such an assent, as that last mentioned, I shall not deter- 
mine ; that in some cases it is so, is not to be doubted. 
The faith of temporary believers undoubtedly requires 
such an action as its cause, and where any thing of this 
evidence affects the minds of persons, at present deep- 

* *' We cannot conceive how reason should be prejudiced by the advance - 
" ment of the rational faculties of our souls with respect unio their exercise 
" toward their proper objects ; which is all we assig-n unto the work of the 
** Holy Spirit in this matter." Br. Oxven on the Spirit, Preface, page 9, 

43 



338 



AN ESSAY, &c. 



ly prejudiced, as they were, who w ere sent to apprehend 
Christ, and went away under a conviction, that never man 
spake as he did ; there such a transient work of the Spi- 
rit of God seems necessary to clear thek minds of pre- 
judices, and make them discern the evidences of a Dei- 
ty : But whether it is so in other cases, I sliall not con- 
clude positively. 

5. But were it granted, That faith, that is, the faculty 
or power of believing, which is nothing else save the 
mind of man considered as a subject capable of assent- 
ing to testimony, still remains ; and that though woful- 
ly impaired, weakened and disabled, it yet continues in 
so fai able for its proper office or work, that either by the 
assistance of some transient operation of God's Spirit, 
breaking in some measiue the power of its prejudices, 
and fixing it to the consideration of its proper object, or 
even without this, upon a more sedate, sober, less preju- 
diced observation, it may, though less perfectly, perceive 
the impress and evidences of God appearing "in the re- 
velations he makes of himself, and that thereon it may 
be actually so affected, as to give some soil of assent, 
and reach some conviction, that it is God who speaks : 
1^ ere, I say, all this granted, it will amount to no great 
matter ; since it is certain, that every sort of faith or 
assent to divine testimony, is not sufficient to answer our 
duty, obtain acceptance with God, and turn to our sal- 
vation. Nor is it so much of our concernment to in- 
quire after that soil of faith which fails of answering 
these ends ; and therefore I shall dip no further into any 
questions about any faith of this sort, or our ability for it. 

6. It is more our interest to understand what that faith 
is, which God requires us to give to his word, which he- 
will accept of, and which therefore will turn to our sal- 
vation ; and whence we have the power and ability for 
this faith. Of these things therefore we shall discourse 
at more length in the next chapter designed to that end 



CHAP. IL 



Wherein the Nature of that Faith, which in Duty we are 
obliged to give to the Word of God, our ohUgatioa to, 
and our ability for answering our Duty, are inquired 
into. 

WE have above insinuated, and of itself it is plain, 
that every sort of faith or assent to divine testimony an- 
swers not our duty, nor will amount to that regard which 
we owe to the authority and truth of God, when he 
speaks, or writes his mind to us. We must therefore, in 
the first place, inquire into the nature of tliat faith which 
will do so. Nor is there any other way wherein this may 
better be cleared, than by attending to the plain scrip- 
ture accounts of it. 

Now , if we look into the scriptures, we find, 1. The 
apostle Paul, 1 Tliess. ii. 13. w hen he is commending 
the Thessalonians, and blessing God on their behalf, gives 
a clear description of tliat faith which is due unto the 
word of God. For this cause also, says he, thank we God 
without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God 
which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of 
men ; but (as it is truth ) the word of God ivhich effectual- 
ly worketh also in you that believe. If we advert to this 
description, we cannot but see these things in it, Fii^st, 
That some special sort of assent is here intended. The 
.Thessalonians did not think it enough to give such cre- 
dit, or yield such an assent as is due to the word of men, 
even the best of men. Secondly, In particular it is plain, 
that such an assent is intended as some way answers the 
unquestionable firmness of the testmiony of the God of 
truth, wiiich is the ground whereon it leans. Thirdly, 
It is obvious, that somewhat more is intended than a 
mere assent, of whatsoever soil it is : The words plainly 
import such an assent, or receiving of the w ord of God, 
as is attended with that reverence, submission of soul, re- 



.340 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



signation of will and subjection of conscience, that is 
due to God. 

This the use of the word elsewhere in scripture strong- 
ly pleads for, and the manner wherein the apostle ex- 
presses himself here is sufficient to convince any man 
t!:at no less is intended. 1. Less than this would scarce 
have been a ground for the apostle's thanksgiving to 
God, and for his doing tliis rvithout ceasing. And indeed 
we find that this expression elsewhere used imports not 
only people's assent to, but their consent and approba- 
tion of the word of God ; yea, and their embracing in 
practice the gospel. Acts viii. 14. and xi. 1. 2. We are 
told Heb. xi. 1. that is the evidence of things not seen. — 
i^eyx^h which wc render evidence, signifies propei'ly a 
convincing demonstration, standing firm against, and re- 
pelling the force of contrary objections. J aith then is 
such an assent as this, It is a firm conviction leaning upon 
the strongest bottom, able to stand against, and withstand 
t[:e strongest objections. 3. The apostle more particu- 
larly describes the ground whereon it rests, oi- what that 
demonstrative evidence is, whereon this conviction is 
founded, and that both negatively and positively, 1 Cor. 
ii. 5. It stands not in tiie wisdom of men, but in the power 
of God. That is, it neither leans upon the eloquence, 
nor reasonings of men, but upon the pow erful evidence 
of the Spirit's demonstration, as it is in the verse before. 

Having given this short and plain account of faith from 
the scripture, we must in the next place prove, that in 
duty we are bound to receive the word of God with a 
faith of this sort. Nor will this be found a matter of any 
diflftculty : For, 

1. The scriptures hold themselves forth to us as tiie 
Oracles of God, which holy men of God spake as they 
were moved hy the spirit of God, and wrote by divine in- 
spiration, and the Holy Ghost is said to speak to us by 
them. Now the very light of nature teaches us, that 
wlien God utters oracles, speaks and writes his mind to 
us, we are in duty bound readily to assent, give entire 
credit to, and rely with the firmest confidence on the 
veracity of the speaker ; and further, we are obliged to 
attend to what is spoken with the deepest veneration. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 341 



reverence and subjection of soul, and yield an unre- 
served practical compliance with every intimation of hiin 
mind. 

2. The scriptures were written for this very end, Thai 
we might so believe them as to have life hy theitiy J ohn xx. 
30. 31. And again, Rom. xvi. 25, 26. The scriptures of 
the prophets according to the commandment of the everlast- 
ing God, are said to be made known to all nations for the 
obedience of faith. Certainly then we are in duty obliged 
to yield tins obedience of faith. 

3. The most dreadful judgments, yea eternal ruin, 
and that of the most intolerable sort, are threatened 
against those, who do not thus receive the words of God 
from his servants, whetlier hy word or writ, is no mat- 
ter. Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, 
when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dmt 
of your feet. Verily I say unto you. it shall be more tolera^ 
hie for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that ci- 
ty. Matt. X. 14. 15. Accordingly we find the apostles 
preacii the word at Antioch in Pisidia, Acts xiii. dejuand 
acceptance of it both of .lews and Gentiles, and upon 
their refusal, they testify against them in this way of the 
Lord's appointment, ver. 51. And all this severity they 
used witiiout oli'ering miracles, or any other proof for 
theii doctrine, so far as we can learn, besides the au- 
thoritative proposal of it in the name of God. 

4. We find tlie apostle, in the words above quoted, 
commendmg tlie T'liessalonians for receiving the word in 
this manner, which is proof enough, that it was thek du- 
ty to do so. 

This much being clear, it remains yet to be inquired. 
Whence we have power or ability for yielding such an 
assent, whether it is natural or supernatural ? Now if 
we consult the scripture upon this head, we find, 

1. That this ability to believe and receive the things 
of God to our salvation and his glory, is expressly de- 
nied to unrenewed man, or man in his natural estate, 2 
Thes. iii. 2. All men have not faith : 1 Cor. ii. 14. The 
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; 
for they are foolishness unto him : Neither can he know 
them, because they are spiritually discerned, John viii. 47 — 



342 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



Ye therefore hear not God's words^ because ye are not of 
God, 

2. This is expressly denied to be of our selves, and 
asserted to be a supernatual gift of God, Eph. ii. 8. By 
grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of your- 
selves, it is the gift of God. 

3. The production of it is expressly ascribed unto 
God. He it is that fulfils in his people the work of faith 
with power, 2 Thes. i. 11. He it is that gives them, that 
is, that enables them, on the behalf of Christ to believe and 
suffer for his name, Phil. i. 29. It is one of the fruits of 
the Spirit, Gal. v. 22. And of it Christ is the aidhor, Heb. 
xii. 2. The further proof and vindication of this truth I 
refer to polemical writers. 

But here possibly some may inquire. How it can be 
our duty thus to believe the scriptures, since we are not 
of ourselves able to do so ? In answer to this, I shall on- 
ly say, I. The very light of nature shews, that it is our 
duty to yield perfect obedience, yet certain it is we are 
unable to answer to our duty. 2. The scriptures plainly 
require us to serve God acceptably 7vith reverence and god- 
ly fear, and with the same breath tells us, we must liave 
grace to enable us to do it, Heb. xii. 28. 3. We have 
destroyed ourselves, and by our ow n fault impaired the 
powers God originally gave us, and brought ourselves 
under innumerable prejudices and other evils, whereby 
the entrance of light is obstructed : but this cannot rea- 
sonably prejudge God's right to demand credit to his 
word, on which he has impressed sufficient objective evi- 
dence of himself, which any one that has not thus faulti- 
ly lost his eyes, may upon attention discern. 4. It is 
therefore our duty to justify God, blame ourselves, and 
wait in the way he has prescribed, for that grace which 
is necessary to enable us; and if thus we do his will, or at 
least aim at it, w e have no reason to despair, but may 
expect in due time to be enabled to understand and 
know, whether these truths are of God, or they who 
spoke them did it of themselves, John vii. 17. Though 
yet we cannot claim this as w hat is our due. 

From what has hitherto been discoursed, it is evident, 
that this faith, whereby we assent to the scripture, is su- 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 343 



pematural, or may be so called upon a Uvo-fold account: 
1. Because the power or ability for it, is supernaturally 
given ; and 2. The evidence whereon it rests is superna- 
tural. 

In this chapter, we have directly concerned ourselves 
only in the proof of the first of these, viz. That our abili- 
ty thus to believe is supernaturally given ; and this has been 
the constant doctrine of the church of God, which we 
miglit confirm by testimonies of all soils, did om- design- 
ed brevity allow.* 

But our modern Rationalists do resolutely oppose 
this. The author of a late Atheistical pamphlet, that 
truly subverts all religion, may be allowed to speak for 
all the rest ; for he says no more than what they do as- 
sent to : He tells us, " That when once the mystery of 
" Christ Jesus was revealed, even human reason was 
" able to behold and confess it ; not that grace had ai- 
" tered the eye sight of reason, but that it had drawn the 
" object nearer to it.^'f To the same pmpose speak 
the Socinians ; Schlichtingius tells us, " Man endued 
" with understanding is no otherwise blind in divine 
" mysteries, than as he who hath eyes, but sits in the 
" dark : remove the darkness, and bring hhn a light and 
" he will see. The eyes of a man are his understand- 
" ing, the light is Christ's doctrine." To the same pin- 
pose doth the paradoxical Belgic Excrcitator, that sets 
up for philosophy as the interpreter of the scriptures, 
express himself frequently. Nor is his pretended an- 
swerer Vohogius ditferently minded; though he is not 
so constant to his opinion as the other^T 

But these gentlemen may talk as they please, we are 
not obliged to believe them in tliis matter. The scrip- 
tures plainly teaching us, that our minds are blind, our 
understandings impaired and obstructed in discerning 
the evidence of truth, by prejudices aiising from the en- 

* See Mk. Wilson's Scripture's genuine Interpreter asserted. Appen. pagxi 
4, 5, &c. 

I Treatise on Human Reason, page 58, published 1674, and to the credit of 
, the church of England, with an Imprimatur, quoted by Mr. ^Vilson, ubi supra, 
page 13. 
t AVilsqn's ibitJ, page 



344 



AN ESSAY, &c. 



mity of the will, and depravity of the' affections. Nor 
were it difficult to demonstrate from scripture, that no 
man can believe, or understand the word of God aright, 
till, 1. The spirit of God repair this defect of the faculty, 
or gives us an understandings 1 John v. 20. 2. Break 
the power of that enmity that rises up against the truths 
of God as foolishness. 3. Cure the disorder of our af- 
fections, that blinds our minds. And 4. Fix our minds, 
otherwise vain and unstable, to attend to what God 
speaks, and the evidence he gives of himself But this 
is not what we principally design, and therefore we shall 
insist no longer upon this head : Our present question is 
not about our ability or power to believe, but ihe ground 
whereon we do believe. What has been spoken of the 
former hitherto, is only to prepare the way for the con- 
sideration of the latter, to which we now proceed. 



CHAP. III. 



Ground, or the formal Reason, nhcreon Faith assents 
to the Scriptures is inquired after ; the Rationalist's 
Opinion about it, and particularly as steded hi/ Mr. 
Locke in his Rook on Human Understanding, is pro- 
posed and considered, 

THOUGH we have spoken somewhat concerning 
our ability to believe the word of God, and the super- 
natural rise thereof, in the preceding chapter ; wherein 
we have ofiered our thoughts of that which goes 
under the name of subjective light ; yet this is not the 
question mainly intended in these papers. That which 
we aim more particularly to inquire after, is the ground 
whereon the mind thus subjectively enlightened, or by 
the spirit of God disposed, fitted and enabled to discern 
and assent to divine revelations, builds its assent, and 
wherein it 7'ests satisfied, or acquiesces. 

The question then before us is this. What is ih<ii ground 
whereon, or reason which moves and determines us to 
receive the scriptures as the word of God ? What is the 
formal reason whereon our faith rests ? Or w hat is the 
proper answer to that question. Wherefore do ye believe 
the scriptures to be the ivord of God, and receive truths 
therein proposed as the word of God, and not of man ? 

It is in general owned by all, who believe the scrip- 
tures to be a divine revelation, that the authority, truth 
and veracity of God, who is truth itself, and can neither 
deceive, nor be deceived, is the ground whereon we re- 
ceive and assent to propositions of truth therein reveal- 
ed. 

But this general answer satisfies not the question : 
For, though it is of natural and unquestionable evi- 
dence, that God's testimony is true, cannot I ut be so, 
and as such must be received ; yet certain it 's, tl;rt di- 
vine testimony abstractly considered, cannot be the 
44 



34(3 



AN ESSAY CONCERINING 



ground of our assent unto any truth in particular : . But 
that whereon we must rest, and whereon our faith must 
lean, is, " The testimony of God to it, evidencing itself, 
" or as it gives evidence of itself unto the mind." The 
knot of the question then lies here, " What is that evi- 
" dence of God's speaking or giving testimony to truths 
" supernaturally revealed, whereby the mmd is satisfied 
" that God is the revealer ? Or when God speaks, or in- 

timates any truth to us, how, or in A\hat way doth he 
" evidence to us, that he is the revealer, what ground is 
" it whereon we are satisfied as to this precise point ?" 

Now whereas there are persons of three sorts, who 
may be called to assent to divine revelations, the ques- 
tion proposed may be considered with respect to each 
of them. ^ 

1. The question may be moved concernuig those per- 
sons to whom the scripture revelations Avere originally 
made ; and as to them it may be inquked. When God 
did reveal his mind unto the prophets, what was that evi- 
dence, Avhat Avere those Tsy.f^7,ptcc or certuin signs, whereby 
they Avere infallibly assured, that the propositions they 
found unpressed upon thek minds, Avere from God ? 

2. As to the persons to whom they did immediately 
rcAcal these truths, it may be questioned. What evi- 
dences they had to move them to assent, and give faith 
to those truths Avhich Avere proposed to them as divine 
revelations ? On Avhat ground did they rest satisfied, that 
really they Avere so ? 

3. Whereas we, who noAV live, neither had these reve- 
lations made to us originally, nor heard them from the 
persons to Avhom they Avere so given ; but being com- 
prised and put together in the Bible, they are ofiiered to 
us as a divine revelation, and Ave are ui duty, upon pain of 
God's displeasure in case of refusal, called and required 
to believe, and assent to Avhatever is therein rcA^ealed, as 
the word of God and not of man ; hereon it may be moved. 
What is that evidence which this hook gives of itself, 
that it is of God, Avhereon our minds may rest assured 
that really it is so ? 

As to this question, in so far as it concerns thie first 
sort of persons mentioned, aa c shall not dip much into 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 347 



it ; all I shall say is this, in the words of the judicious 
and learned Dr. Owen, " In the inspirations of the Ho- 
" ly Spirit, and his actinias on the minds of holy men of 
" old, he gave them infallible assurance tljat it was him- 
" self alone by whom they were acted, Jer. xiii, 28. If 
" any shall ask by what reKf^npia or infallible tokens they 
" nn'^ht know assuredly the insphations of the Holy 

Spirit, and be satisfied with such a persuasion as w as 
" not liable to mistake, that they were not imposed 
" upon ? I uiust say plainly. That I cannot tell ; for 
" these things whereof we have no experience.""^^- 

There is one thing dropt as to this matter by the in- 
genious Mr. Locke, that deserves some animadversion. 
Though he delivers nothing positively about those evi- 
dences which the prophets liad, yet negatively he tells 
us, that the prophets' assurance did not at lest solely 
arise from tlie revelations themselves, or the operation 
of the Spirit impressing them upon their minds, Avliich 
he calls the internal light of assurance : But that beside 
this, to satisfy them fully that those impressions were 
from God, external signs were requisite ;t and this he en- 
deavors to prove fioin their desiring confirmatory signs, 
as Abraham and others did ; and from God's giving such 
signs undesired. To this purpose his appearing to Sloses 
in the bush, is by our author taken notice of. As to the 
opinion itself, I look on it as highly injurious to the ho- 
nor of divine revelation, and I take the ground whereon 
it is founded to be weak and inconclusive : For, 1 . neither 
Mr. Locke, nor any for him, ah^ll ever be able to prove, 
that these divinely inspired persons always reqmred or got 
such confirmatory signs extrinsical to the revelation or in- 
spiration itself ; yea, it is manifest, that for most part 
they neither sought them nor got them. 2. When they 
did seek or. get them, Mr. Locke cannot prove, that ei- 
ther God or they found them necessary for the present 
assurance of the person's own minds; as if that internal 
light of assurance, to use Mr. Locke's words, had not of 

* Dr. Owen on the Spirit, Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 10. pag. 104. 
f Human Uuderstanding', Book 4. Chap. 12. 15. page 593. Fdilion 5Ui, 
170.6. 



348 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



itself, w bile it abode, been sufficient to satisfy tbe mind 
fully, that it was God who was dealing with it, or reveal- 
ing himself to it. It is plain, that other reasons of their 
desiring such signs may be assigned. When the matters 
revealed were things at a distance, which requned some 
extraordinary out-goings of God's power to effectuate 
them, in that case they desired, and God condescended 
to grant to them some extraordinary signs, not to assure 
them that God was speaking unto them, but to strength- 
en their convictions of the sufficiency of God's power, for 
enabling to do what he required of them, if it was difficult, 
or accomplishing what he promised to them in defiance of 
the greatest opposition. Sometimes divine revelations were 
promises of things at a distance, that were not to be ac- 
tually accomplisi.ed till after a long tract of time, and 
over many inconvenient obstructions; in this case they 
were obliged to believe these promises, and wait in the 
faith of them, even when that light, that first assured 
them, was gone, and such evidences or signs might be of 
use to them to adhere unto the assent fonnerly given 
upon that supernatural evidence, that at first accompa- 
nied the revelation. Such signs then might be of use to 
strengthen the remembrance of that first evidence, which 
they had when the revelations were first imparted to 
them. These and other reasons of a like nature might 
sufficiently account for their desiring these signs, and 
God's giving them : But as has been said, we intend not 
a determination or full decision of this question. 

We shall only consider the question with respect un- 
to the two last sort of persons. And as to those who 
heard, or had divine revelations immediately from in- 
spired persons, our rational divines seem positive, that 
the evidence whereon they assented to what tliey deli- 
vered as the mind of God, consisted in, or did result from 
the miracles they wrought, and other external signs, or 
proofs, which they gave of their mission from God. 
Monsieur L'Clerk, in his Emendations and Additions to 
Hammond on the New Testament, gives us this gloss on 
1 Cor. ii, 5. " Paul, says he, would have the Corinthians 
" believe him, not as a philosopher proposing probabili- 

ties to them, but as the messenger of God, who had 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 340 



" received commandment from him, to deliver to them 
" those ti uths which he preached, and, that lie thus re- 
" ceived tliem, he did shew by the miracles he thus 
^ w roughl." And a little after he adds, " He whose faith 
" leans upon miracles wrought by God's power, his 
" faith is grounded upon the divine power, the cause of 
" tliese divine miracles." As to this opinion itself, I 
shall express myself more particularly just now : But 
as to Monsieur L'Clerc's inference from this text, he 
had no manner of ground for it. Let us but look into the 
verse before, and there we find the apostle telling the 
Corinthians, that in his preaching he avoided the en- 
ticing words of man^s rvisdom, and delivered his message 
in the demonstration of the Spirit^ and of power. Upon 
the back of this 5t]i verse, he tells them, his design in 
doing so was, that their faith might not stand in the wis- 
dom of men, hut in the power of God, that is, on the pow^- 
erful demonstration of the Spirit of God, mentioned in 



dream of miracles, and fetch them in here, while the 
scope and every circumstance of the text stood in the 
way of this exposition, I cannot divine ; for nothing is 
more foreign and remote from the sense of this place. 
If the author had follow ed the old approved interpreter 
of scripture, I mean the scripture itself, and had looked 
into the foregoing verse and context, he had given us 
a more genuine account : But pliilosophy now set up 
for an interpreter, I had almost said a perverter, did 
certainly lead him into this violent and ridiculous gloss. 
But to come to the matter itself. 

Miracles can be no other the ground of any assent, 
than as they atlbrd ground for, or may be made use of 
as the medium of an argument, whereby the divine mis- 
sion of tlie w orker is concluded and proven. This then 
must be the opinion of these gentlemen. That they who 
heard tiie apostles or prophets, could not be satisfied in 
their minds, that what they said was divinely revealed, 
until they w ere convinced of it by proofs drawn frou) 
mkacles or signs, w-rought by the preacher ; and that 
this is not merely my conjecture, is evident from the ac- 
counts we have of their opinions and hypothesis, wiiere 



the for 




How xVIonsieur L'Clerc came to 



350 AN ESSAY CONCERNING • 



of this is reckoned as a principal one, that the niind of 
man being rational, cannot be moved but by a rational 
impression, that is, by the force of effectual reasons.* 
And to the same purpose vre shall find Mr. Locke ex- 
pressing himself by and by. 

Upon this hA-pothesis, it is evident, 1. That if a Hea- 
then came into a Christian assembly, and heard Paul 
preaching, or even Jesus Christ himself, if he had never 
seen them work any sign or miracle, he v» ould not be 
obliged to believe their doctrme. 2. If the apostles 
preached to those among whom they wrought no mira- 
cles, gave no such outward signs, such persons could 
not be obliged to believe them, the evidence whereon 
such a belief is founded being denied. 3. They who 
heard them, and saw the mu'acles, could not be obliged 
to assent unto thek doctrine, until by reasoning they 
would have tune to satisfy themselves, how far natural 
causes might go towards the production of such efiects, 
and how fcr these things, admitting them to be superna- 
tural, could go toward the proof of this — ^that what they 
delivered was fiom God. 4. If there was any among 
them so dull, as not to be capable to judge of these nice 
points, I do not see how, upon these principles, they 
could be obliged to believe. These and the like are not 
strained consequences ; for it is undeniable, that our ob- 
ligation to believe arises from the proposal of due ob- 
jective evidence ; if this is wantuig no man can be obliged 
to believe. 

As to us Vvho neither conversed with the inspired per- 
sons, to whom such revelations were originally given, 
nor saw the miracles they wrouo^ht, we are told by those 
Rationalists, That we have historical proof, that there 
were such persons, that they wrote these revelations 
which we now^ have, and that they wrought such miia- 
cles in confiimation of their mission and doctrine ; and 
upon the evidence of these proofs we must rest, they 
will allow us no other bottom for our faith. Hence Mon- 
-lem- Le' Clerc tells us, " That whatever faith is this 

day in the world among Christians, depends upon the 

te stimony of men." 



* Spanhem. Elcncl 



rs:aruni, 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 351 



Among many who have embraced this opinion, Mr. 
Locke in his Essay on Human Under slandingy lias de- 
clared himselftotliis purpose, and upon several accounts 
he deserves to be taken special notice of : I shall there- 
fore represent faithfully and shortly his opinion, and the 
grounds whereon it is founded, and make such animad- 
versions upon them, as may be necessary for clearing 
our way. His opinion you may take m the ensuing pro- 
positions. 

1. When he is speaking of the different grounds of 
assent, and degrees thereof, he says, " Besides those we 

have hitherto mentioned, there is one sort of proposi- 
" tions that challenge the highest degrees of our assent 
" upon bare testimony, whether the thing proposed 
" agree or disagree witii common experience and the 
" ordinary course of things, or not. The reason where- 
" of is, because the testimony is of such an one, as can- 
" not deceive or Ije deceived, and that is of God him- 
" self. Tliis carries with it assurance beyond doubt, evi- 
" dence beyond exception. This is called by a peculiar 
" name, rcvelalion, and our assent to it, faith : Which as 
" absolutely determines our minds, and as perfectly ex- 
" dudes all wavering as our knowledge itself."* 

2. But notwithstanding, he tells us in Ihe very same 
paragraph, " That our assiuance of truths upon this tes- 
timony," or to give his own words, " Our assent can 
" be rationally no higher than the evidence of its being 
" a revelation, and that this is the meaning of the ex- 
" pressions it is delivered hi." That is, as he himself 
explains it, " If the reasons proving it to be a revelation 
" are but probable, our assurance amounts but imto a 
" probable coiijecture." 

He distinguishes betwixt traditional and original re- 
velation. By the last of these, says he, " I mean that first 
" impression which is made immediately b}^ God on the 
" mind of any man, to which Ave cannot set any bounds ; 
^' and by the other, those impressions delivered over to 
" others hi Avords, and the ordinary ways of conveying 
^' our conceptions one to another."! And afterwards 

* Human Understand. Book 4. Cap-. 18. §. H. pag". 564, 565; 
+ Ibid.§, 3. pa,^. 5.82. 



352 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



speaking of immediate or original i^evelation, he tells ug, 
"That no evidence of our faculties by which we re- 
" ceive such revelations, can exceed, if equal, the cer- 
" tainty of our intuitive knowledge.""^ And in the pre- 
t:eding paragraph, speaking of traditional revelation, he 
tells us, " That whatsoever truth we come to the clear 
" discovery of, from the knowledge and contemplation of 
" our own ideas, will always be more certain to us, than 
" those, which are conveyed by traditional revelation."t 

4. He tells us, " That true light in the mind can be 
" no other but the evidence of the truth of any propo- 
" sition," and hereon he proceeds to tell us, " That there 
" can be no other evidence or light in the mind, about 

propositions that are not self-evident, save what arises 
" from the clearness and validity of those proofs upon 
" which it is received : And he adds, " That to talk of 
" any other light is to put ourselves in the dark, or in 
^' the power of the prince of darkness."t 

5. In the next paragraph he tells us plainly. That 
there is no way of knowing any revelation to be from 
God, but by " rational proofs : or some marks in which 
reason cannot be mistaken."^ 

6. In this next paragraph he tells what before we have 
taken notice of. That the internal light of assurance 
which the prophets had, was not sufficient to testify, that 
the truths impressed on their minds were from God, 
without other signs. || 

Thus far of IMr. Locke's opinion, which in sum 
amounts to this, " That even the original revelations, 
had not in them intrinsic evidence, sufficient to assure 
them on whom such impressions were made, that they 
were from God ; that other signs were necessary to sa- 
tisfy them ; and that others who received such revela- 
tions at second hand, not from God immediately, but 
from inspired persons, have no other evidence to ground 
thek assent on, besides that which results from argu- 
ments drawn from those signs, whereby they did con- 
firm their mission ; and that we have no evidence who 



* Human Understand. Book 4. Cap. 18. §. 5. pag. 583. 

t Tbid. Book 4. Cap. 18. §. 4. pag-. 582. t Ibid. Book 4. Cap. lO: §. lo 

§Ibid. §. 14. Illbid. 15. 



THK reason of true faith. 353. 



saw not llic^e signs, besides that of ilie historical proofs, 
whereby it is made out, that the persons wlio wrote the 
traditional revelations we have, wrought sucli signs in 
confirmation of their mission from God." 

It is worth our while to dwell a little liere, and more 
narroAvly consider Mr. Locke's thouglits/and the grounds 
of his opinion ; I slialT tliei'efore olfer a few observa- 
tions on this docti ine. 

I. Mr. Locke in his first proposition, speaks very ho- 
norably of divine faith. As to the assent or act of faith, 
he says, That it is an assent of the higiiest degree ; as- 
" surance without doubt." As to the ground of it, he 
says, "That it is such as challenges an assent of the 
" highest degree ;" that it is " evidence beyond excep- 
" tion." These are goodly words. He has spoken well 
in all that he has said, I wish that his meaning and heart 
may be found as good as his word«. All is not gold that 
glitters. Let us then look a little more narrowly into his 
meaning. 

To find it out, we shall suppose that God, as no doubt 
he did, does reveal immediately to Paul this proposition, 
Jesus is the Son of God. Here is a revelation : By Paul 
it is assented to. Well liere is faith. Now in his be- 
lieving this proposition, he may be said to assent to three 
things — That what God says is true — That Jesus istiie 
Son of God — and. That God says this to Paul. 

Now, I ask Mr. Locke, or any of our rationalists that 
are of his mind. To which of these three is it that Paul 
assents, with an assent " of the highest degree," and of 
which he lias " evidence beyond exception ?" 

1. Could Mr. Locke only mean, that we have the 
highest assurance of this general verity, That God's tes- 
timony is infallibly true / No, sure. For the assent to 
this truth is not an act of faith, but of intuitive know- 
ledge. The truth itself is not a trutli here divinely re- 
vealedjbutof natural evidence. This is not so much in 
Hiis instance ex'pressly assented, as supposed know n. 

2. Doth Mr. Locke mean, tiiat we assent to this pro- 
position, That Jesus is the son of God 1 Had Paul " as- 
s^iu'aoce be>ond doubt" and "evidence beyond except 

45 



354 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



lion," of this ? But surely Mr. Locke knew that Pauf, 
on this supposition, does not at all assent to the propo- 
sition, Jesus is the Son of God absolutely, but as it is re- 
vealed. Well then, all the evidence that Paul has to 
ground his assent upon, is the evidence of this, That God 
says so to him. If then the evidence of God's saying so 
to him is not such as " challenges an assent of the high- 
est degree," Paul cannot have the " highest degree of 
assurance" of that proposition, the faith whereof leans 
entirely upon his assurance of this. That God has reveal- 
ed it. For as Mr. Locke says very truly in that same 
paragraph, " Our assurance of any particular truth, that 
" is, the matter revealed, can never rise higher in degree 
" than our assurance of this, that it is revealed." If then 
Paul has not " evidence beyond exception," that God re- 
veals the proposition we speak of to him, he can never 
have such assurance of the truth of the proposition ma- 
terially considered. Wherefore, 

3. Did Mr. Locke think in this case, that Paul would 
have evidence beyond exception, challenging the high- 
est degree of assent, and thereon assurance beyond doubt, 
or of tlie highest degree, of this, that God did in very 
deed say to Paul, That Jesus is the Son of God ; or of 
this truth. That Jesus is the Son of God as revealed. It 
is the assent to this proposition that in proper speaking 
is faith. The assent to the general proposition above- 
mentioned, is not an act of faith at all. Nor is the as- 
sent to the proposition revealed, materially considered, 
an act of faith* Faith in this case, is only the assent to 
that proposition as revealed, or to the revelation of it. If, 
then, Paul has not the highest evidence for, and thereon 
the highest assurance of this, That God says this to him, 
his faith can never be said to be the highest degree of 
assurance or assent. Thisthen Mr. Locke must mean, or 
he means nothing. But yet I suppose he scarce thought 
so : For, 1. He tells us afterwards, that we can have no 
evidence for receiving any truth revealed, that can ex- 
ceed, if equal, the evidence we have for our intuitive 
knowledge. If we have not then evidence, equal at least 
to that which we have for our intuitive knoAvledge, for 
our belief of God's being the revealer, or that he speaki=^ 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 355 



to us, we cannot have the highest degree of assurance. 
2. He afterwards tells us, tiiat we have no evidence for 
this, that this or that trutli is revealed to us by God, but 
that which results from reason or arguments, drawn from 
marks, whereby we prove that God is the speaker ; but 
Mr. Locke owns, that the evidence of all our reasonings, 
is still short of tliat which we have for our intuitive 
knowledge. Now methinks this quite overthrows Mr. 
.Locke's goodly concession. AVith what consistency 
with truth or himself, Mr. Locke wrote at this rate, is 
left to others to judge. 

n. Whatever there is in this concession yielded in fa- 
vor of faith, Mr. Locke afterwards takes care that we 
who now live shall not be the better for it : For after- 
wards he tells us plainly, " That whatsoever truth we 
" come to the dear discovery of, from the knowledge 
" aridcontemi)]ationof ourideas,will al way she more cer- 
" tain to us, than those which are conveyed by tradi- 
" tional revelation." We have no revelation at this day, 
but that which Mr. Locke calls traditional. And here 
it is plain, that Mr. Locke thinks that our certainty of 
any truth we have from this, is inferior in degree to any 
sort of natural knowledge, whether intuitive, rational or 
sensible. 

IIL It is manifest, that the foundation of all is, what 
Mr. Locke teaches in the fourth position above mention- 
ed ; wherein he tells us, " Tliat to talk of any other light 
" in the mind, beside tliat of self-evidence, reason, and 
" sense, is to put ourselves in the dark," I have added 
this last, "the light of sense," because Mr. Locke, 
though he mentions it not here, yet elsewhere he admits 
it. That we may understand Mr. Locke's assertion ex- 
actly, it must be observed, that writers, when they treat 
of this subject, usually take notice of a two-fold light. 
There is subjective light, by which is meant either our 
ability to perceive, discern, know and judge of objects, 
or our actual knowledge, assent, &c. A gam there is oft- 
jective light, by which they mean that evidence whence 
our knoAvledge results, whereon it is founded, and which 
determines the mind to assent or dissent. Now it is of 
this last lhat Mr. l^ocke is treating in his chapter of En^ 



356 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING. 



Ihusiasniy from whence this proposition is taken. And 
his opinion is this, That there is a threefold ohjective 
light, which is a real and just ground for the mind to as- 
sent on. There first, sdf -evidence, which is the ground 
of our intuitive knowledge, resulting from the obvious 
agreement or disagreement of our ideas, appearing up- 
on fiist vievr or intuition, when they are compared. Se- 
condly, There is rcdional light, or the evidence resulting 
from arguments, v»herein the agreement or disagree- 
ment of our ideas is cleared bv assumino- intermediate 
ideas, by the help of wdiich our mind is cleared, as to 
what judgment it is to pass. Thirdly, There is the light 
of sense, or the evidence resulting from impressions 
made on uur minds by the intervention and means of our 
organs of sense. 

But besides these, he admits of no other objective 
light or evidence, that may be a just gTound of assent ; 
and adds, " That to talk of any other, is to put our- 
" selves in the dark ; yea, in the povrer of the prince o f 
" of darkness, and tarn to enthus a ts." 

Tiiis grape must be pressed, that we may taste its 
juice, how it relislies. In the consideration of this doc- 
trine delivered by iMr. Locke, we shall not at present 
inquire whether it really does not preclude all place for 
faith, properly so called. Tiiis in the issue will be fur- 
ther cleared. 

But whatever there is as to this, if Mr. Locke's doc- 
trine hold, certain it is, that either faith, if there is such a 
thing, must be founded on one of those three grounds of 
assent, or sorts of objective light, or it is altogether irra- 
tionah For an assent not founded on, and to which we 
are not determined by real objective evidence, is brut- 
ish, irrational, and really enthusiastic, as being no reason 
or ground: And besides these three sorts oT grounds, 
Mr. Locke admits of none. Faith, therefore, must be 
founded either on one or the other of them, or it must 
want all reason for it. 

Further, it is to be observed. That Mr. Locke's taking 
self-evidence for that which is immediately perceptible 
without the intervention of any intermediate ideas, by 
the natural power of our intellectural faculties, not ae- 



THE REASON OF TRITE FAITH. 3rj 



sisted, renewed, elevated and influeneed by any super- 
natural influence ; and taking sensible evidence for tlmt 
svbich is conveyed by the intervention of bodily organs, 
from corporeal substances, cannot be tliought to make 
either of these the ground of faith to tlie testimony of 
God. And tlierefore it must have no reason save lliat 
rational evidence, which makes tiie middle sort of objec- 
tive light. But 1 need not spend time in proving ti)is, 
since it is no more than what is taught us in the fifth 
proposition abovementioned. 

Tiiis opinion thus far explained is indeed the sum, and 
contains tl e force of w liat is pleaded, or, for ought I 
know, can be pleaded for the judgment of our Rational- 
ists. We shall therefore weigli the matter more serious- 
ly, and proceed by some plain steps in the ensuing pro- 
positions. 

1. " If good and solid reasons can be produced for 
" proof of anoti er sort of objective light or evidence, 
" besides those three mentioned by Mr. Locke, it must 
^- be admitted, though we should not be able to give a 
" satisfying account of its nature, and other concern- 
" ments." 

(1.) This I believe Avas never denied in the general as 
to other things, l)y any person of judgment, adverting to, 
and understanding what is said, and why it then should 
be refused in this case, I can see no ground. 

(2.) If any has ever in general denied this in words, I 
am sure every man in fact admits it. Who is he that re- 
ceives not nrany trutl.s, that admits not the being of ma- 
ny things, u])on good proof, from their causes, efi'ects, in- 
separable adjuncts, <fcc. of the natiue of which he can 
give no satisfying accoimt ? W^e all own the mutual in- 
fluence of om- souls and bodies upon one another, upon 
the proofs we have from the efiiects: But whoever has 
understood the manner, how the soul operates on the bo- 
dy, or the body upon it ? Instances of tliis sort are in- 
numerable. 

(3.) Sulficlent proofs must always determine our as- 
sent ; and if there are such in this case, it is unreasonable 
to refuse it. 



358 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



(4.) If we have sufficient reasons to convince us, that 
there is a fourth sort of objective light distinct from those 
three admitted by Mr. Locke, and only deny it because 
we understand not, or cannot give a clear account of its 
nature, I cannot tell, but on this same ground we shall re- 
ject, and be obliged to refuse these three sorts admitted 
by him, for the very same reason. Mr. Locke perhaps 
has done as much as any man to explain them : but were 
he alive, I believe he would be as ready to own as any, 
that he has been far from satisfying himself, or offering 
what may fully clear others as to the nature of these 
things, AYherei'n evidence consists? Wh^i is it? What is 
self-evidence, or that evidence which is the gronnd of 
our sensible or rational knowledge ? How they operate 
and influence the assent? All his accounts are only de- 
scriptions taken from causes, effects are the like. But 
w^hat objective light or evidence is, wherein it really con- 
sists, (and the like may be said of the rest) is as much a 
mystery as it was before, when he tells us, that self-evi- 
dence ( ex, gr.J is that which is immediately perceived 
w ithout the intervention of intermediate ideas. Here I 
learn, that it is not rational evidence, that requires such 
intennediate ideas. But this is all I can learn, unless it 
be, that it is perceptible by the mind, that is, it is evi- 
dence. But w^hat evidence is, I am yet to learn. I think 
this proposition is plain. 

2. " A fourth sort of objective evidence, different from 
" those three assigned by Mr. Locke, is not impossible." 

(1.) If any say it is, it lies upon him to prove it. That 
Mr. Locke, or millions more, observed no such light in 
theu' minds, found themselves determined to assent by no 
other objective evidence or light, will not prove it im- 
possible ; yea, will not prove that actually there is no 
such light ; nay, will not prove, that there is no such light 
in their own minds. For Mr. Locke, though he observ- 
ed as accurately the manner of his mind, its actings, as 
most men, yet might not observe it so, but that he possi- 
bly overlooked somew hat that passed there. A nd if real- 
ly Mr. Locke did not assent upon other evidence to some 
things, though he observed it not, I doubt not but by 
this time he is sensible it was his loss that it was so. It 



m 

■P THE REASON OF URUE FAITH. 359 

cannot be pretended, that it is impossible for want of a 
sufficient cause, while tliat God is in being, who is author 
of the three sods of lights, that are admitted, and who 
is the Father of lights. Nor can ii be pretended, that the 
members of this division stand contradictoril}- opposed 
to one another, as it is in this. Every being is cUpcndent 
or independenL 

(2.) If any will say yet. It is impossible there should 
be a fourth or a fifth sort of light or objective evidence, I 
shall desire him only to stay a while, and consider the 
light of sense. It is nothing else save " that evidence 
^' that results from impressions made on our minds by 
" means of our organs of sense." Well, hereon I shall 
ask two questions. 

Firsty Is it not possible for him who made those con- 
veyances or organs of sense, to frame more such, quite 
different from tliose we already have, and by means of 
them impart to us other perceptions, and determine as to 
assent on the evidence of the impressions conveyed to 
our minds by these other senses ? If it is possible, as I see 
not how rationally it can be questioned, here is at least 
a fourth sort of objective light determining our minds to 
assent, admitted sls possible, 

Secondli/y Here 1 woidd inquire, W^^^^^^^^' ^^^^7 
He, who, by these bodily organs v/e already have, im- 
presses ideas upon our minds, and determines our assent 
to their agreement or disagreement, immediately mthout 
the intervention of such organs, makes impressions on our 
minds, whereby our assent or judgment may rationally' 
be swayed ? To deny this will look very odd and irra- 
tional to sober men, that have due thoughts of God. If 
it is admitted, w e have here at least the possihility of an- 
other ground of assent, or objective liglit, acknowledged, 
different from those condescended on by Mr. Locke. 

(3.) We that have the benefit of sight, have in our 
minds a sort of objective evidence or light, different from 
those V. hich are born blind have. And why should it 
be then thought impossible that others may have in theii* 
minds an evidence that we have no experience of, and 
that it may be equally real, convincing, or more so than 
•my t^>'M we have-. 



360 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



(4.) IMr. Locke giants, That there are extraordinary 
ivaijs whereby the knowledge of truth may be imparted 
to men ; that God sometimes illuminates by his Spuit 
the minds of men, with the knowledge of truths; tliat 
there is no bounds to be set to such divine impressions. 
Now if all this is so, why may there not be evidence of a 
different sort, resulting from such extraordinary impres- 
feions, illuminations, (S:c. allowed to be also possible ? 

(5.) Either God can reveal his mind so to man, as to 
give him the highest evidence or ohjective light that he 
speaks to him, who gets that revelation, or he cannot. If 
he can, then there is possible an objective evidence, and 
that of the highest sort, different from those three men- 
tioned by INIr. Locke : for that it must be dilTerent ig^ 
evident, because IMr. Locke in this case Aviil allow no 
place for self-evidence, or that evidence we have in our 
intuitive knowledge, which he determines to be the 
highest degree of these three sorts he has admitted and 
owned. Speaking of immediate revelation, he sa} s, 
" No evidence of our faculties, by which we receive 
" such revelations, can exceed, if equal, the certainty of 
" our intuitive knovv ledge, as we heard above." Since 
then this evidence of the higliest degree, is different from 
til at which Ave have in our intuitive Jvnowledge, (if it is 
at all) it must be of a different sort from any of those 
three : For bv concession, it is not self-evidence ; and 
rational or sensible it is not, because these sorts of evi- 
dence are of a degree inferior to intuitive evidence y — If 
then it is evidence of the highest degree, since Mr. 
Locke will not admit it to be self-evidence, it must be 
none of the three : and so we have a fouiih sort admitted 
possible. But if God cannot reveal his mind, so as to 
give the greatest objective evidence that he speaks, or is 
the revealer, then I say, it is plain, and follows unavoida- 
bly, that God's testimony can neyer have from man the 
highest degree of assent, which Mr. Locke above express- 
ly acknowledged to be its due. It is in vain to say that 
God's testimony is infallible : for our assent to any truth 
upon God's testimony, as Mr. Locke truly says, can ne- 
ver rise higher, than the assurance we have of this, that 
really we have God's testimony, and take its meaning. 



w 

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 30J 

If Ihen God cannot give us the higlicst evidence or ob- 
jective light as to this, no trutli he oilers can liave from 
us the highest degree of assent. To me this looks like 
blaspheiuy, to imagine, that God has made a rational 
creature, 1o wliom lie cannot so impart his mind as to 
give it sucii evidence as is absolutely necessary to lay a 
ground for entertaining his testimony witli tliat res])ect, 
which is its unquestionable due. That ids testimony is 
in itself infallible, will never make our assent of the 
highest degree, unless tlie evidence of his giving testi- 
mony is of the highest degree. 

3. " We assert, Tiiat dt facto there really is a sort of 
" objective evidence or light, ditferent from that con- 
" descended on by Mr. Locke." 

(l.) Tiie prophets to whom immediate revelations 
were made, had objective evidence, or light sufficient to 
ground the highest assurance, tliat the truths impressed 
oh their minds were from God. It is impious to deny 
it. But this Mr. Locke will not allow to be such evi- 
dence as we have in our intuitive knowledge ; and all 
must confess, that it did not result from their outw ard 
senses ; and that it was not grounded on reasonings from 
evidences, marks or signs, extrinsical to the revelations 
themselves, seems undeniable, or even from reasoning, 
and making inferences from what was intrinsical in the 
revelation. For, L We find not, that this persuasion 
came to them by such argumentation or reasoning. AVe 
can see no gi ound from any accounts we have in scrip- 
ture to think, that they took this way to assure their own 
minds. Yea, 2. The scripture accounts of the way of 
their being convinced, seem all to import, that as God 
impressed the truths on- their minds, so triat immediate- 
ly by that very impression, he fixed an indelible and firm 
conviction of his being the revealer. Again, 3. W e see, 
that the evidence was so convincing as to bear down hi 
them the force of the strongest reasonings and the clear- 
est arguments that stood against it, as we see evidently 
in the case of Abraham ; he is commanded to ofier his 
son Isaac ; if this command had not been impressed on 
his mind Avitli an evidence, that God Avas the revealer, 
bevond what anv reasoning upon signs and marks, and 

46 



362 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



I know not what, could pretend to, the strong plain ar- 
guments that lay against it, strengthened by a combina- 
tion of the strongest natural affections, must have car- 
ried it. 4. If Abraham Avas convinced by such reason- 
ings, that God revealed this, that this command w as from 
God, is it not strange that he makes no mention of them, 
when it was so obvious, that it was liable to be question- 
ed whether God could give such a command ? But the 
truth of it is, it is obvious to any one that thinks, that 
nothing could prevail in this case, but the uncontrolable 
and irresistible evidence resulting from the very impres- 
sion, whereby the command was revealed. But we 
wave any further consideration of this, which now we 
have no experience of. 

(2.) Mr. Locke will admit, that the primitive Chris- 
tians, who embraced the gospel, did it upon sufficient 
objective evidence. He is not a Christian who denies 
it. But he will not admit intuitive evidence in this case. 
And I shall, I hope, afterwards make it appear, that it 
was not on the evidence of such reasonings, as Mr. Locke 
talks of, that they embraced it 

(3.) The scriptures demand our assent, and offer 
no evidence but this of God's authority. And argu- 
ments are not insisted on to prove, that it is God that 
speaks; God calls us not to assent without objective 
evidence, and yet waves the use of such arguments as 
Mr. Locke would have to be the foundation of our faith. 
There must be therefore some objective light of a dif- 
ferent sort supposed, that must be the ground of our as- 
sent. And that there really is so, the scriptures teach, 
as we shall see afterwards, when this proposition must 
be proven, and explained more fully. 

(4.) Abstracting from what has been said, we have as 
good ground as can be desired, and as the nature of the 
thing admits, for believing there is really a light distinct 
from that mentioned by Mr. Locke. As to the per- 
sons who have it, this light evidences itself in the same 
way as the other sorts of intellectual light do. They 
are conscious of it, and find it has the same effect, deter- 
mining the mind to assent, assuring it, and giving it rest 
in the full conviction of truth. As to others who Avant 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 363 



H, they have such evidence as a blind man has, that there 
is siicli a thing as visible evidence. They have the con- 
curring sulli age of persons sober, judicious and rational, 
who have given evidence of the greatest cautiousness in 
guarding against delusion, enthusiasm, and groundless 
imaginations. Besides, the effects peculiarly flowing 
from such a faith as leans on this foundation, gives evi- 
dence to it. But I cannot stay to prove this further at 
present. 

4. " Thougli perhaps an account every way satisfying 
cannot be given of the nature of this light, nor can 
" we so clearly see wiiat it is, and w^herein it consists, as 
" to make those who are unacquainted with it, under- 
" stand it, or have as exact a notion of it as they have, 
" whose experience satisfies them as to its reality : Yet 
" such an account may be given of it, as may secure it 
" against the imputation of unreasonableness, and un- 
" intelligibility." To this purpose, I shall only observe 
the few things ensuing. 

(1.) That light or objective evidence, whereon we are 
obliged to believe, and all that are subjectively enlightr 
ened to believe the scriptures, and ground their assent, 
is such, that a more intelligible account by far may be . 
given of it to those, who have no experience of it, than 
can be given of the objective evidence of visible objects 
to persons w ho have no experience of sight. To clear 
this, 

(2.) It is to be observed, that in the writings of men, 
especially of some, who have any peculiarity of genius, 
and excel in any kind, we find such characters, marks 
and peculiar evidences of them, not only in the matter, 
but in the manner of expression, and way of delivering 
their thoughts : there is such a spirit, and somewhat so 
peculiar to themselves to be observed, that such as have 
any notion of their writings, cannot thereon avoid a con- 
viction, that this or that book, though it bears not the 
author's name, or those other marks, whereon we depend 
as to our opinion of the authors of books, of whom we 
have no particular acquaintance, is yet written by such 
an author, the vestiges of whose peculiar spirit and ge^ 
nius run throug]\, and are discernible in the strain of the 



364 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



book. There are few men, who are acquainted with 
books, and read them with attention and judgment, w ho 
have not the experience of this. And hence we are fre- 
quently referred to this, as what may satisfy us, that 
books that bear such authors' names are genuine and ^ 
truly theirs.^^<- And it is found more convincing than the 
attestation of no incredible witnesses in many cases. 
Yet it must be confessed, that persons of the best judg- 
ment, and most capable to express thek thoughts, will 
find it difficull, if not mipossible to express intelligibly 
wherein this objective evidence consists : But that real- 
ly it is there, tiiat there is such a tiling, is impossible for 
them to question. 

(3.) If poor men, who differ infinitely less from one 
another, than the most exalted created being can be sup- 
posed to do from God, do impart to the product of their 
own thoughts, and leave on their writings such peculiar 
and discernible characters of their own genius, and spirit, 
as, at fii'st view, upon the least serious attention, con- 
vinces the reader, that they are the authors and enables 
him to distinguish their writings from others, is it not 
reasonable to suppose, that a book written by God, must 
carry on it a peculiar and distinguishing impress of its 
author ; and that by so much the more certainly dis- 
cernible, by any that has right notions of him, as the 
difference betwixt him and the most exalted human ge- 
nius is infinitely greater, than that betwixt the most con- 
temptible pamphlet writer and the most elevated scho- 
lar? Nay, is it not impossible rationally to imagine the 
contrary ? Can Ave think that he, who in all his works, 
even in the meanest insect, has left such objective evi- 
dence, and such impressions of himself, whereby he is 
certainly known to be the author, has not left impres- 
sions, more remarkable and distinguishing, on his ivordy 
w hich he has magnijied above all his namey that is, all the 
means whereby lie designs to make himself known, and 
which he designed to be the principal means of impai tin 

* " Though yoTi had not named the author, «S:c. I could 1 avc knov n aiul 
" avouched him. The e ij> a face of a !^ty]e, b}- v hich -vve pchola: ^ knov, onr 

anothev, no ^e.^s than our peif-on;- by a vir-ib^e countenance" Eis/top HaW^ 
Frejace to Dr. TivisPs douUi?^g Cor.s. resoh'cl^ pag. 2. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 365 



the knowlt do;e of himself to men, and that for the high- 
est purp(;s(s — tlieu salvation and Ms own glory, 

(4.) Ti is iinpress, those characters, prints and vestiges 
of ttiC inftnite perfections of the Deity, that iniavoida- 
biy must be allowed to be stamped on, and siiine, not 
merely, or only, or principally, in the matter, but 
in that as spoken or written, and in the writings or 
words, in their stile, the spirit running: through them, 
the scope, tendency, &;c. This 6eo-xfe7Feiot. or God-be- 
coming impress of majesty, sovereignty, omniscience, 
independence, holiness. Justice, goodness, wisdom and 
power, is not only a sufficient and real,butin very deed, 
the greatest ohjective light and evidence imaginable. 
And where one I; as an understanding given to know him. 
that is ^rwc, and is made thereby to enteiiain any suita- 
ble notions of the Deity, upon intuition of this objec- 
tive evidence, without waiting to reason on the matter, 
his assent will l)e carried, and unavoidably determined 
to rest on it as tlie highest ground of assurance. And 
tliis assent founded on this impress of the Deity, in his 
own word, is uideed an assent of the highest degree. 
And thus far faith resembles our intuitive knowledge, 
with this dilference, not as to the manner of the mind's 
acting but as to tlie ability whence it acts ; that in our 
intuitive knowledge, as Mr. Locke, and tliose of liis 
opinion, restricts it, the evidence or objective light is 
such as not only is immediately witliout reasoning dis- 
cerned, but such as lies open to, and is discernible by 
our understandings, without any subjective light, any 
work of the Spirit of God, either repairing our disabled 
faculties, or elevating and guiding them to the due ob- 
servation, or fixing their attention, or freeing tlieir minds 
of the power and present influence of aversion of will, 
disorder of aifections, and prejudices that obstruct the 
discerning power. Whereas this is really necessary in 
this case ; and though the objective evidence is great, 
and still the same, yet according to the greater or lesser 
degree of this assistance, our assent must be stronger or 
w eaker, more fixed or wavering. 

(5.) When this objective evidence is actually obser- 
vant to, and under the view of the mind thus enabled, 



366 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



disposed and assisted, there doth arise from it, and tiiere 
is made by it, an impression on the whole soul corres- 
ponding thereto. The beaming af God's sovereign au- 
thority awes conscience. The piercing evidence of his 
omniscience increases that regard, the view of his good- 
ness, mercy, love and grace, operates on the will, and 
leaves a relish on the affections, and this truly resem- 
bles sensible evidence, though it is of spiritual things, 
and of a spiritual nature ; nor is it, as it is evidence, in- 
ferior to, but upon many accounts preferable to that 
which results from the impression made by sensible ob- 
jects. And this, as was observed of the former, is also 
greater or less, according, and in proportion unto the 
view we have of that objective light abovementioned. 
This self-evidencing power is a resultancy from, and in 
degree keeps pace with that self-evidencing light. 

(6.) The etlects wrought on the soul are such, many 
of them, as not only are most discernible in the time, 
but likewise do remain on the soul, some of them ever 
after, many of them for a long tract of time, and in their 
nature are such as evidently tend to the perfecting of 
our faculties, are suitable to them, and for their improve- 
ment, even according to what unprejudiced and sober 
reason determines, as to that wherein the defects of our 
faculties, and their perfection consists. And the reali- 
ty of those effects, whereof the mind is inwardly con- 
scious, appears to the conviction of beholders, in their 
influence upon the person's deportment before the world. 
And, 

(7.) Hence it is, that though our conviction neither 
needs, nor is founded on reasonings ; yet from those 
effects ground is given, and matter offered for a rational 
and argumentative confirmation of our assent, and the 
grounds thereof, and the validity of it for our own con- 
firmation, when that evidence which first gave ground 
for our faith, and v/herein it rests, is not actually under 
view, as also for the conviction of others. 

(8.) This evidence is such as indeed challenges, and is 
a sufficient bottom for an assent of the highest degree. 
And indeed the saints of God, and that even of the mean- 
est condition, and who have been under the most mani- 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 3G: 



fest disadvantages, botli as to capacity and education, 
with the like occasions of improvement, upon this bot- 
tom have reached faith, comprising assurance without 
doubt, even tliat full assurance of faith, yen the riches of 
the full assurance of under standing y a»s lias been evident 
by tlie effects in death and Jife, of whicli we have nota- 
ble instances not a fcAv in Heb. xi, tiiroughout, both in 
adversity and prosperity, life and death. 

5. " I observe, I'hat this light or objective evidence 

whereon faith is bottomed, has no affinity with, but is 
" at the fartlicsf remove from enthusiastic impulses, or 
" imaginations." 

(1.) This is not a persuasion w^ithout reason. Here ig 
the strongest reason, and the assent hereon given leans 
upon the most pregnant evidence. 

(2.) It carries no contradiction to our faculties, but 
influences them, each in a way suitable to its nature and 
condition. 

(3.) Yea more, none of our laculties in their due use 
do contradict, or at least disprove it. AYhereas enthu- 
siastic impressions are irrational. 

(4.) This is not a persuasion, nor a ground for it w ith- 
out, or contraiy to tlie w ord, but it is the evidence of 
the word itself, that by it w e are directed to attend to, 
and im]>rove. 

(5.) Yea it is what om* other faculties in their due 
use will give a consequential confirmation to, as we have 
heard. Wherefore, 

(6.) Mr. Locke shall be allow ed to run down enthu- 
siasm as much as he pleaseth, and " persuasions where- 
" of no reason can be given, but that we are strongly 
" persuaded," or not to give credit to those that can sa}-- 
no more for themselves, " but w^e see or feel," kc. But 
these things as delivered by Locke,' need some cautions. 
As, L A persuasion whereof no reason can be given, is 
certainly not faith, but fancy : but a persuasion, where- 
of he that hath it, through weakness, cannot give an ac- 
count, may be solid. 2. A persuasion may be solid, of 
which he tiiat hath it, cannot give another evidence of 
the same kind as he hath himself. It is enough that 
proof of another sort, and sufficient in its kind, is offer- 



368 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



ed. 3. If one says, he sees and he feels, this may be sa- 
tisfying to him, though he cannot give any distinct ac- 
count of the evidence he hath. And that he cannot thus 
account for the nature of things that are within him, con- 
cludes not against the reality and truth of what he has 
the experience : but his experience is not ground of con- 
viction to otiiers, unless other proofs are offered. A man 
of a shallow capacity, destitute of education, miglit be 
convicted of enthusiasm by a subtle blind man, to whom 
he cannot for his seeing give an evidence of the same 
kind, nor open the nature of visible evidence, nor give 
any other proof that he is not mistaken, but that he 
sees ; and yet notwithstanding of this he is not mistaken, 
assents not w ithout reason, and has no ground to call in 
question what he sees, but may and will securely laugh 
at all the blind man's quirks, and tell him, he is blind. 
The case is parallel. We must not by this Atheistical 
scare-crow be frightened out of our faith and experi- 
ence. 

6. " That many read the scriptures, without discern- 
" ing any thing of this light, is no argument against it." 
For, 

(1.) Many want that supernatural ability, that un- 
derstanding whereby God is known, whereby Christ's 
sheep know his voice from that of a stranger, and so not be- 
ing of God, they cannot hear his words. 

(2.) Many want, and are utterly destitute of any tol- 
erable notions of God: It is unpossible such should dis- 
cern what is suitable to him. 

(3,) Many have perverse notions of God rivetted on 
thek minds, and that both among the learned and un- 
learned ; and finding the scripture not suited to, but 
contrary to those false pre-conceived impressions, they 
look on it as foolishness. 

(4.) Many want that humble frame of spirit, which 
has the promise of divine teaching ; the meek he guides 
in the way. It is they who are fools in theii' own eyes, 
who get wisdom. 

(5.) Many are proud and conceited deeply, and no 
wonder then that tliey know nothins;. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 369 



(6.) Many have the vanity of their minds unciired, 
and so hunt after vain tilings, and fix not in observation 
of what is solid, and thereby their foolish hearts are har- 
denedy and then- minds darkened and diverted. 

(7.) Not a few are under the power of prevailing lusts, 
disordered affections, and out of favor to them they are 
so far from desii ing an increase of knowledge, that on 
the contrary, the?/ like not to retain God in their knowledge. 
What they already know, is uneasy to them, because con- 
trary to their lusts, and therefore they would be rid 
of it. 

(8.) Many there are that despise the Spirit of God, 
reject his operations, seek not after him, contemn him : 
And no wonder such as refuse the guide, lose the way. 

(9.) Many, for those and other sins, are judicially left 
of God to the god of this world, who blinds the minds of 
them, that believe not. 

(10.) Many never attempt to do his will, and so no 
wonder they come not to a discerning whether the word 
spoken and written, is of God. And if all these things 
are considered, we shall be so far from questioning the 
truth, because many see not the evidence, that this very 
blindness will be an argument to prove the truth of it, 
and a strong evidence of the need of it, and of superna- 
tural power to believe it. 

Finally, Persons sober and attentive want not some 
darker views of this evidence, Avhich may and should 
draw them on to wait for more. And I take the honorable 
confessions, in favor of the scriptures, made by adversa- 
ries, to have proceeded from some fainter views of this 

JgOit. 

Thus I have considered the force of what I find plead- 
ed by Mr. Locke ; stated the question ; cleared in some 
measure our opinion as it stands opposed to that of the 
Rationalists; assigned an intelligible notion of the rea- 
son of faith ; and shewed it to be such as the meanest are 
capable of, and such as is proposed to all who are oblig- 
ed to believe the scriptures ; whereas these historical 
proofs are above the reach of thousands, and were never 
heard of by innumerable multitudes, who, on pain of 

47 



370 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 

damnation, are obliged to receive the scriptures as the 
word of God. 

lY. Having in our third observation overthrown the 
ground of Mr. Locke's opinion, we are now to clear^, 
that what Mr. Locke builds on, must of course fall ; |j 
particularly what he tells us, Lib. 4. Cap. 18. Par. 6. page 
584. " That they who make revelation alone the sole 
" object of faith, cannot say, that it is a matter of faith, 
" and not of reason^ to believe, that such or such a pro- 
" position, to be found in such or such a book, is of divine 
" inspiration ; unless it can be revealed, That that pro- 
" position, or that all in that book was communicated by 
" divine inspiration." And he goes on telling us, " That 
" without such a particular revelation, assuring us of this> 
" that this proposition is by divine inspiration, it can ne- 

ver be matter of faith, but matter of reason, to assent 
" to it." 

What Mr. Locke designs by this discourse, I know 
not ; unless he meant to put us under a necessity to 
prove every proposition of the scripture to be of divine 
inspiration, before we believe what it exhibits. And if 
this is what he intends, he overthrows the Christian reli- 
gion entirely, at least as to its use and advantage to the 
generality. But waving what further might be observ-i 
ed, I shall only animadvert a little upon that one asser- 
tion, " That our belief, that this or that proposition is^ 
" from God, is not an act of faith but of reason." As to 
which I say, 

L If Mr. Locke designed no more but this. That the 
mentioned assent to the scripture propositions, is an act, ^ 
of, and subjected in our rational, or intellectual faculty, 
it might well be admitted. Or, 

2. If Mr. Locke meant, that this assent is agreeable to 
the nature of our minds, that is, that it is no t really con- 
trary to the true principles of reason, nor such as pro- 
ceeds without such grounds as the nature of our under- 
standings require for founding an assent, we should ad- 
mit, that in this sense it is an act of reason, that is, a ra- 
tional act, as not only being elicit by our understandings,, 
but depending on such a reason or ground, as the nature 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 37! 



of the intellectual power requires, and which must he 
•always consistent with our certain knowledge. But, 

3. Neither of these being intended, we cannot go along 
with Mr. Locke in what he means by this expression, 
jThat our belief of scripture propositions, is an act of 
reason, that is, an assent not built upon divine testimony, 
but on such ottier arguings and reasonings, as we can 
find out for proving that God revealed it. Because we 
' say, and shall afterwards prove, that the scriptures do 
evidence themselves to be from God, in that way above- 
expressed, and afterwards to be explained and confirm- 
ed, which we hope shall be done in such sort, as may ef- 
fectually repel the force of what Mr. Locke has pleaded 
.in opposition to the scriptures, and shew that there is no 
reason for ranking all the truths therein delivered 
amongst those con jectural tilings that lean only on proba- 
bilities and reasonings from them, which Mr. Locke evi- 
dently does, while he sinks traditional revelation as to 
the point of certainty below our intuitive, rational and 
t^ensible knowledge ; and banishes all faith, properly so 
called, out of the world, leaving no room for it, and sub- 
stituting in its place an act of reason, proceeding upon 
probabilities, that is, on historical proofs, which he 
reckons only among probabilities; nor do I blame him 
for this last, though perhaps some things he has offered on 
this head, might be excepted against; but this is not my 
business. 

The question in short amounts to tliis, " Whereas the 
" scriptures, wherever they come, oblige all to whom 

they are ofl'ered, to receive them not as the word of 
" man, but, as indeed they are, the word of God; upon 
" what ground or formal reason is it, that we assent 
" thus unto them, and receive them as the word of Gody 
" to his glory and our salvation, in compliance with our 
" duty ?" 

In answer to this important query, I shall offer what, up- 
on a review of former experience, upon consideration of 
the scriptures, and upon what others, especially that judici- 
ous and profound divine Dr. Owen, in his two treatises on 
this subject, have written on this head, appears satisfy- 
ing to me : And this I shall do in the few following Pro- 



372 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



positions, which I shall, with as much brevity and perspi- 
cuity as I can, lay dow n, and shortly confinu with some 
few argmnents. 

Prop. I. " That faith whereby we assent unto, and 
" receive the word of God, to his glory and our salva- 
" tion, is faith divine and supernatmal." 

1. There are at this day, who teach. That whatever 
faith is at present to be found amongst men, is built up- 
on, and resolved into the testimony of men.^ And 
therefore it w ill be necessary to insist a little in confirm- 
ing and explaining of this important truth. 

2. To clear this we observe, that the understanding, 
or that faculty, power or ability of the soul of man, 
whereby we perceive, and assent unto truths upon their 
proper evidence, may be distinguished or branched in- 
to diverse subordinate powers, in respect of the differ- 
ent truths to which it assents. 1. We have an ability 
of assenting unto the self-evident maxims of reason, such 
as that. The same thing, at the same time, cannot be 
and not be, upon their own self-evidence, without any 
other argument, than a bare proposal of them in terms 
we understand. 2. We have an ability to assent unto 
other truths, upon conviction of their truth by ar- 
guments, drawn fiom the forementioned self-evident 
truths, or any other acknowledged or owned by us. 3. 
We have an ability to assent unto truths, upon the evi- 
dence of the testimony of credible witnesses, or persons 
worthy to be believed, and of deserving credit. This 
ability, and the assent given by it to such truths, upon 
such testimony, are both called by the same common 
name, faith. 

3. Faith then is that power or ability of the mind of 
man, whereby he is capable of receiving, and actually 
assents to truths upon the evidence of the testimony of 
persons w orthy of credit, who know what they testify, 
and will not deceive us. Now whereas the person giv- 
ing this testimony, is either God, men or angels, good or 



* L'Clerc in his Logics. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 



373 



bad, faith may be considered as either divine, human or 
angelical. This last, as of no consideration^to our purpose, 
we shall lay aside. That faith, or ability, whereby we 
assent to the testimony of men worthy of credit, is call- 
ed human faith. And that whereby we assent to truths 
upon the evidence of the testimony of God, who cannot 
lie, is called divine faith. 

4. Divine faith is that power, or ability whereby we 
assent unto, and receive truths proposed to us upon evi- 
dence of the word or testimony of God, to our own sal- 
Tation, in compliance w'lXh our duty, to the glory of God. 

5. In this account of divine faith, we add, in compli- 
ance with our duty, to the glory of God, and our own sal- 
vation, because devils and men may yield some assent 
unto truths, upon the evidence of G od's testimony, which 
neither answers their duty, nor turns to the glory of God 
in their salvation, of which we do not now design to 
speak, and therefore by this clause have cut it ofli and 
laid it aside, as not belonging to that faith whereof we 
now speak, and whereby we conceive all, to whom the 
scriptures come, are obliged to receive them. 

6. This faith now described may be called divine, and 
supernatural, and really it is so on two accounts, I. Be- 
cause this ability is wrought in them, in whom it is found, 
by the divine and supernatural poAver of God. 2. Be- 
cause it builds not its persuasion of, yields not its assent 
unto the truths it receives upon any human authority or 
testunony ; but upon the testimony of God, who can nei- 
ther be ignorant of any truth, nor be deceived, or deceive 
us. 

7. It now remains, that we confirm this proposition 
that we have thus shortly explained. And this Ave shall 
do by its several parts. First, then vie assert, "That 
" this faith is wrought in those, who have it, by the 
" power of God." Now for clearing this, we shall only 
hint at the heads of a few arguments, leaving the fuilher 
proof to polemic treatises. 1. This ability to believe 
and receive the things of God to our salvation and his 
gloiy, is in scripture expressly denied to natural or un- 
renewed men. 2 Thes. iii, 2. All men have not faith. 1 
Cor. ii, 14. — The natural man receivcth not the things of 



374 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



he Spirit of God: Forthei/ are foolishness unto him: Neitha' 
can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 
John viii, 47. — Ye therefore hear not God's jvords, because 
ye are not of God. 2. This is expressly denied to be of 
ourselves, and asserted a supernatural of God. Ephes. 
ii, 8. — By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not 
of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 3. The production of 
it is ascribed unto God. He it is that fulfils in his peo- 
ple the work of faith with power, 2 Thes. i, 11. He it is 
that gives them, that is, that enables them, on the behalf 
of Christ, to believe and suffer for his name, Phil, i, 29. It 
is one of the fruits produced by the sjnrit. Gal. v, 22. and 
of it Christ is the author. Heb. xii, 2. 

Secondly, We are next shortly to prove, " that this 
" faith builds its persuasion on the testuuony of God, 
" evidencing itself such unto the mind," and not on hu- 
man testimony. 1. It is in scripture expressly said not 
to stand in the wisdom of men, 1 Cor. ii, 5, that is, it leans 
not on the word, authority, eloquence or reasonings of 
men. 2. It is expressly in that same verse, said to stand 
in the power of God, that is, as the foregoing words com- 
pared with verse 13, explain it, in the words which the Ho- 
ly Ghost teacheth, and which he demonstrates or evidences 
by his power, accompanying them, to be the wo7'd of 
God. 3. It is described in such a way as fully clears 
this ; it is held forth as a receiving of the word, not as the 
word of man, but as it is indeed the word of God, which ef 
fectually worketh in you that believe, 1 Thes. ii, 1 3. Ma- 
ny other proofs might be added, but this is sufficient to 
answer our pmpose. 

Thirdly, We shall next shortly ^prove, " that we are 
" obliged in duty thus to believe the scriptures, or to 
" receive them as the word of God, and not of men." 
1. The scriptures are indeed, and hold themselves forth 
every Avhere as the word of God. They are the oracles 
of God, which holy men of God spake by the motion of 
the Spirit of God, and wrote by divine inspiration, and the 
Holy Ghost speaks to us by ihem.^ Now when God ut- 
ters oracles, speaks, writes and utters his mind to us, we 



* Heb. V, 12.— 2 Pet. i, 20, 21.— 2 Tim. iii, 16.— Mark xii, 36.— Acts i, 16— 
Acts xxviii, ::5.— Heb. iii, 7. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 375 



are in duty obliged and bound to assent to what he says, 
and yield what obedience he requires. This the very 
light of nature teacheth. 2. The scriptures were written 
for this very end, that we might believe, and that believ- 
ing we might have life, John xx, 30, 31. The scnptiires of 
the prophets (Avhich contain the revelation of the mystery 
of God's will, otherwise not known) according to the com- 
mandment of the everlasting God, are made knorvn unto all 
nations for the obedience of faith, Rom. xvi, 25, 26. 
Again the scriptures are termed a more sure word qf' pro- 
phecy than the voice from heaven, and men are said to 
do well, to take heed to them, 2 Pet. i, toward the close. 
That is, it is their duty to take heed to them, or believe 
them. 3. The most dreadful judgments are threatened 
against those who receive not the word of God from the 
prophets or apostles, whether by word or writ, is all one. 
Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, 
when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust 
of your feet. Verily I say unto you. It shall be more tolera- 
ble for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of 
judgment, than for that city. Matt, x, 14, 15. Accordingly 
we find the apostles preach the word at Antioch in Pisi- 
dia> Acts xiii ; demand acceptance of it both of Jews and 
Gentiles ; and upon their refusal they testify against them 
in the way of the Lord's appointment, ver. 51. I'hough 
so far as we can learn, they there wrought no miracles 
to confirm their mission. 4. We have above heard the 
apostle commending the Thessalonians for receiving the 
word as the word of God, and not of rnan, I . Thess. ii, 1 3, 
which suflficiently shews that it Avas their duty. 

Whereas some may here say, " How can it be our du- 
ty to believe the word of God, since it has been above 
proved, that Ave are not able of ourselves thus to do it." 
I ansAver briefly, 1. The very light of nature requires 
perfect obedience of us ; and yet Ave are not able to 
yield this to it. 2. 1'he scriptures plainly require, that we 
serve God acceptably, with reverence and Godly fear, Heb. 
xii, 28, and yet Ave must have grace Avhereby to do it. 
3. We have destroyed ourselves, Hos. xiii, 9, and that 
through this, our faith or natural ability of believing 
truths upon testimony, is so impaired and weakened, an^ 



376 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 

by prejudices so obstructed otherwise, that we are not 
able to discern the evidence of God's authority, in his 
word, nor assent thereon to his testimony in a due man- 
ner, yet this cannot reasonably prejudge God's right to 
demand credit to his word, whereon he has impressed 
such prints of his authority, as are sufficiently obvious 
to any one's faith, that is not thus faultily depraved. 
4. We have therefore no reason to question God, who 
gave us eyes, which we have put out, but to blame our- 
selves, and aim to do his will, that is, wait on him in all 
the ways of his own appointment ; and we have no rea- 
son to despair, but that in this way we may have gracious- 
ly given us of God's sovereign grace, an understanding to 
know whether these truths are of God, or they who 
spoke them did it of themselves, (1 John v, 20. John vii, 
17.) though we cannot claim this as what is our due. 

Thus we have in some measure cleared what that 
faith is, whereby the scriptures must be believed to the 
glory of God and our own salvation, and confirmed 
shortly our account of it from the scriptures of truth. 
We now proceed to 

Prop. II. " The reason, for which we are obliged in 
" duty to believe or receive the scriptures as the word 
" of God, is not, That God has by his Spirit wrought 
" faith in us, or given us this ability thus to receive 
" them." 

This proposition we have offered, because some dd 
blame Protestants for saying so ; whereas none of them 
really do it. Nor can any man reasonably say it. For 
clearing this observe, 

1. It is indeed true, that we cannot believe them, un- 
less God give us this gracious ability or faith to believe 
them, and by his Holy Spirit remove our natural dark- 
ness, and clear our minds of those prejudices against 
his word, w herewith they are naturally filled. 

2. Yet this is not the reason wherefore we do assent 
unto, or receive the scriptures ; for it were impertinent, 
if any should ask. Upon what account do ye believe 
the scriptures to be the word of God ? to answer, I be- 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 377 



iieve it because God has wrought the faith of it in me. 
This is not to tell wherefore we do believe, but to tell 
how we came to be furnished with power or ability to 
believe. 

Prop. HI. " We are not to believe the scriptures up- 
" on the authority of any man or church : or, The rea- 
" son wherefore we are in duty bound thus to assent to, 

or receive the scriptures as the Avord of God, is not, 
" that any man, or ciiurch, says so." 

This is fully demonstrated by our w riters against the 
Papists. For confirmation of it, it is sufficient for our 
purpose at present to observe, 

1. That to believe, that the scriptures are the word 
of God, because such a man, or church says so, answers 
not our duty. Our duty is to believe God speaking to 
us, upon the account of his own veracity ; and not be- 
cause men say that this is his word. This is not to be- 
lieve God and his prophets for the sake of their ow^n 
testimony, but for the authority of men, (2 Chron. xx. 
20.) 

2. The faith that leans upon this testimony, is built 
not on the truth of Gody but on the testimony of men, 
who may be deceived and may deceive : All men are liars, 

3. We have no where in the word this proposed as the 
ground whereon, in duty, we are obliged to believe the 
scriptures. 

4. The church, and wdiat she says, is to be tried by the 
word, and her testimony is so far only to be received as 
the word consents ; and therefore we cannot make this 
the ground of our faith, without a scandalous circle, 
which tlie church of Rome can never clear herself of. 

5. But I need insist no further on this head. That 
church w^hich only claims this regard to her testimony, 
is long since become so well known, and so fully con- 
victed of manifold falsehoods, that her testimony rather 
prejudges than helps to confirm whatever it is engaged 
for. 

Prop. IY. " The rational arguments whereby the 
" truth of the Christian religion is evinced and demon- 

48 



37^> AN ESSAY CONCERNING 

" strated against Atheists, though they are many wayi-5 
" useful, yet are not the ground or reason whereon, 
" in a way of duty, all who have the scriptures propos- 
" ed to them, are obli2;ed to believe and receive them 
as the word of God/' 

These moral and rational considerations are, and may 
be many ways useful to stop the mouths of enemies, to 
beget in them, \vho yet are unacquainted with the true 
intrinsic worth of the word, some value for it, and en- 
gage them to consider it ; to relieve them that do be- 
lieve against objections, and strengthen their faith. This 
is allowed to them ; and is sufficient in this loose and 
Atheistical age, to engage persons of all sorts who value 
the scriptures, to study them. But yet it is not upon 
them that the faith required of us, as to the divine au- 
thority of the scriptures, is to be founded. For, 

1. These are indeed a proper foundation for a rational 
assent, such as is given upon moral proof or demonstra- 
tion. And they are able to beget a strong moral per- 
suasion of this truth. But this assent which they beget, 
cannot, in any propriety of speech, be called faith, ei- 
ther divine or human. For faith is an assent upon 
testimony. 

2. The faith that is required of us, is required to be 
founded not on the wisdom of men, that is, the reason- 
ings or arguings of men. Now this leans only and en- 
tirely on these. 

3. I'his faith is, in the way of duty, required of ma- 
ny. Many are in duty obliged to receive the scriptures 
as the word of God, to whom these arguments were 
never offered. The apostles never made use of them, 
and yet required their hearers to receive and believe 
their word. 

4. This faith many are obliged to, who are not capa- 
ble of understanding or reaching the force of these ar- 
guments. 

Prop. Y. " The faith of the scripture's divine au- 
" thority is not founded in this. That they by whom 
" they were written, did, bv miracles, prove they were 

sent of God," 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 379 

I need not spend much time in clearing this. It will 
sufficieiitly confirm it to observe, 

1. That many are, and Avere in duty obliged to yield 
this assent to, and believe the scriptures, who saw not. 
these miracles. 

2. We are no other way sure of these being wrought, 
than by the testimony of the word. 

3. This Avay is not countenanced by the word : for it 
no where teacties us to expect miracles as the ground of 
our assent, but upon the contrary declares, that the word 
of Moses and the prophets is sufficient to lay a founda- 
tion for faith, without any new miracle, (Luke x. 31.) 

Prop. VI. " The reason whereon, in duty we are 
" bound to receive the scriptures as the word of God, 
" is not any private voice, whisper or suggestion from 
" the Spirit of God, separate and distinct from the writ- 
" ten word, saying in our ear, or suggesting to our mind, 
" that the scriptures are the word of God." 

There is no need to insist long in proof of this. 
For, 

1. Many are bound to believe the word of God, to 
whom never any such testimony Avas given ; but no man 
is bound to receive the scriptures, to whom the ground 
whereon he is bound to believe them, is not proposed. 

2. There is no where in the word, any ground given 
for any such testimony. Nor doth the experience of 
any of the Lord's people witness, that they are ac- 
quainted with any such suggestion. And besides, the 
question might again be moved concerning this sug- 
gestion, Wherefore do ye believe this to be the testimo- 
ny of God ? 

Prop. VII. " That whereon all, to whom the word of 
" God comes, are bound to receive it with the faith 

above described, is not any particular word of the 

scripture bearing testimony to all the rest. As for 
" instance, it is not merely or primarily upon this ac- 

count, that I am bound to receive all the written word 
" as the word of God, because the scripture says. 



380 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



" 2 Tim. iii. 16. That all scripture is ^iven by inspiration 

"of God:' n y J 

This is veiy plain upon many accounts, some of which 
I shall shortly offer. 

1 . We had been obliged to believe the scri{)tures with 
faith supernatural, though these testimonies had been 
left out. Yea, they w ho had them not, w ere obliged to 
believe the word of God. 

2. These have no more evidence of their being from 
God, than other places of scriptures ; and therefore w^e 
are not to believe the scriptures merely on their testi- 
mony ; but have the same reason to receive w ith faith 
as the word of God, every pail of the scripture as well 
as these testimonies. 

Prop. YIII. " The reason w hy w e aie bound, w ith 
" faith supernatural and divine, to receive the w^ord of 
" God, is not, that the things therein therein revealed, 

or the matters of the scriptures, are suitable unto the 
" apprehensions which men naturally have of God, 
" themselves and other things, and congruous to the in- 
" terests, necessities, desires and capacities of men." 

I shall not spend time in overthrowing this, w hich 
some seem so fond of ; only for confirming the proposi- 
tion observe, 

1. This suitableness of the matter unto the apprehen- 
sions, or natural notions of men concerning God, them- 
selves and other things, &c. as discerned by men unre- 
newed, and made out by their reasonings, is not a ground 
for faith, or an assent to testimony, but for a persuasion 
of another sort. 

2. There are many things revealed in the scripture, 
which are to any mere natural man no w ay capable of 
this character. No man receives, or can reasonably re- 
ceive on this account, the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
the like. It is true, these are not contrary to our rea- 
son ; but it is likewise true, they have no such evident 
congruity to the notions our reason suggests of God, as 
should engage us to receive the discovery as from God ; 
yea, on the contrar\% there is ^ seepiing inconsistency 
that has startled many. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 381 



Prop. IX. " When therefore it is inquhed, Where- 

fore do ye believe, and by faith rest in the scriptures 
'■^ as the word of God, and not of man ? We do not an- 

swer, It is because God has given us an ability so to 
" do ; because the church says, it is the word of God 
" because there are many strong moral arguments prov- 
" ing it so ; because they who wrote it, wrought miia- 
" cles ; because God has by some voice whispered in our 
" ear, or secretly suggested it to us, that this is the word 
" of God ; or because there are particidar scriptures 
" which bear witness to all the rest that they are of God ; 
" nor finally, because the matter therein revealed, seem 

worthy of God to our reason. 

This is the sum of what has been hitherto clesared ; 
and the reasons offered against all these, whether we 
take them separately or conjunctly. They prove, that 
not one of them, nor all taken together, are the formal 
reason whereon we are obliged to believe the word 
of God, or receive it with faith supernatural and di- 
vine. 

Prop. X. " The formal reason or ground whereon I 

assent to, or receive the whole scriptures, and every 
" particular truth in them, and am obliged in duty so to 
" do, is, the authority and truth of God speaking in 
" them, and speaking every truth they contain, evidenc- 
" ing itself to my faith, when duly exercised about 
" them, and attending to them, by their own divine and 
*^ distinguishing light and power. Or when it is inquii ed, 
" Wherefore do ye believe, receive, assent to and rest^ 
" in the scriptures as indeed the word of God, and not 
* ■ of man ? I answer, I do believe them, because they 

carry in them, to my faith, an evidence of God, or do 
" evidence themselves by their own light and power to 
" my faith, duly exercised about them, that they are 
" the word of God, and not of man." 

Now for explaining this, which is the assertion that 
contains the truth principally intended, I shall offer the 
few following remarks : 

1. HoAvever great the evidence of God in the word 
is, yet it cannot, nor is it requisite that it should, deter- 



382 



AN ESSAY Concerning 



mine any to receive and assent to it, whose faith and 
ability of believing is not duly disposed. Though the sun 
shine never so clearly, yet he that has no eyes, or whose 
eyes are vitiated, and under any total darkening indispo- 
sition, sees it not. No wonder then, that they, who 
have not naturally, and to whom God has not yet, by 
supernatural grace, given eyes to see, ears to hear, or 
hearts to perceive, discern not the evidence of God's 
authority and truth in the word. 

2. Although there really may be in any an ablility, 
or faith capable of discerning this evidence ; yet if that 
faith is not exercised, and duly applied to the consider- 
ation pf the word, whereon this evidence is impressed, he 
cannot assent unto, or believe it in a due manner, to the 
glory of God, his own salvation and according to his 
duty. There is evidence sufficient in many moral meta- 
pliysical and mathematical truths ; and yet abundance 
of persons, who are sufficiently capable of it, do not as- 
sent unto these truths, nor discern this evidence ; not be- 
cause it is wanting, but because they do not apply their 
minds to the observation of it in a due way. God has 
not imparted such an evidence to his word, as the light 
of the sun has, which forces an acknowledgment of 
itself upon any, whose eyes are not wilfully shut; but 
designing to put us to duty, he has imparted such evi- 
dence, as they, who have eyes to see, if according to 
duty they apply their minds, may discern, and be satis- 
fied by. 

3. This light and power evidencing the divine authori- 
ty of the scriptures, is really impressed upon every 
truth, or every word which God speaks to us, especial- 
ly as it stands in its own place, related to, and connected 
witii the other parts of the scripture, whereto it belongs. 
But of this more hereafter. 

4. When to question, Avherefore, or on what gi'ounds 
do I assent to the scriptures as indeed the word of God 
and not of man ? It is answered, I do it, because it evi- 
dences itself to be God's word by its own light or power, 
there is no place for that captious question. How know ye 
this light and power to be divine, or fiom God? For, it 

of the natiu'e of all light, external and sensible, or 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 383 



internal and mental, (concerning which two it is hard to 
determine wliich of them is properly, and Avhich only 
metaphorically, light) that it not only clears to the mind 
other things discernible by it, but satisfies the mind 
about itself, proportionably to the degree of its clear- 
ness. The light of the sun discovers sensible objects, 
and satisfies us so fully about itself, that we need have 
recourse to no new arguments to convince that we have 
this light, and that it is real. In like manner the evi- 
dence of any mathematical truth, not only quiets us 
' about the truth, but makes the mind rest assured about 
itself. And so the divine light and pow er of the word, 
not only satisfies our minds, as to those truths they are 
designed of God to discover, but, in proportion to the 
degree of light in them, or conveyed by them, satisfy 
the mind about this light or powder, that it is truth and is 
no lie. Nor is there need for any other argument to con- 
vince a mind affected with this, of it. It is true, if a 
blind man should say so to me, How know ye that the 
sun shines, and ye see it ? I would answer, I know it by 
the evidence of its own light atiecting mine eyes : And 
if he should further say, But how prove ye to me, that 
ye are not deluded, and that really it is so? Then I w ould 
be obliged to produce other arguments whereof he is 
capable : But then it must be allowed that the evidence 
of these arguments is not so great as the evidence I my- 
self have of it by its own light; tliougli they may be 
more convincing to him. And fuither, this is not to 
convince myself, but to satisfy him, and free my mind 
from the disturbance of his objections. In like manner, 
if one, that denies the scriptures, shall say. Wherefore 
do ye believe or rest in the scriptures, as the word of 
God? I answer, I do it, because they evidence themselves 
to my mind, by their own light, or power, to be of God, 
If he shall say, I cannot discern this. I answer. It is be- 
cause your mind is darkened, ye want eyes, or have 
them shut. If he shall fuither urge. That my light is 
not real, I will prove it by argument?, wlucli may stop 
his mouth, and be more convincing to him than my as- 
sertion, which is all that hitherto he has ; but yet these 
:\rguments are not that whereon my mind rests satisfied 



384 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



as to the truth ; though they may be of great use, not 
oniy to convince him, but to relieve my mind against 
such subtle sophisms, as he might make use of, which 
though they could not persuade me out of the sight of 
my eyes, or the evidence shining into my mind, yet 
troubled me how to answer them, and at times, when, 
through my inadvertency, or indisposition of my eyes, 
or through clouds overspreading and interposing betwixt 
this light and me, these objections might shake me a 
little. 

5. Considering we are but renewed in part, and our 
faith is imperfect, and liable to many defects, the minis- 
ti y of the church is of manifold necessity and use, to 
awaken us to attend to this light, to cure the indisposi- 
tions of our minds, to hold up this light to us, to point 
out and explain tlie truths it discovers, whereby our 
ininds are made more sensible of the evidence of this 
light. And upon many other accounts of a like nature, 
are the ordinances necessary, and through the efficacy 
of the divine ordination and appointment, useful for es- 
tablishing our minds, naturally sluggish, dark, weak and 
unstable, and which are exposed to manifold temptations, 
in the faith of the scriptures. 

6. In order to our holding fast our faith, and being 
stable in it, besides this outward ministry, and the in- 
ward work of the Holy Ghost, giving us an understand- 
ing to discern this evidence, and besides the foremen- 
tioned use of the moral arguments abovementioned ; 
besides all these, to our believing and persevering in a 
due manner, in the faith of the scriptiu^es, we stand in 
need of the daily influences of the Spirit of God, to 
strengthen our faith or ability of discerning spiritual 
tilings, to clear our minds of prejudices, and incidental 
indispositions, to seal the truths on our minds, and give 
us refreshing tastes of them, and confirm us many wslvs 
against opposition. 

7. T'his light, whereby the written word evidences it- 
self unto the minds of those who have spkitual ears to 
hear, and apply them, is nothing else save the impress of 
the majesty, truth, omniscience, wisdom, holmess, justice, 
grace, mercy, and authority of God, stamped upon the 



I^HE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 385 



scriptures, by the Holy Ghost, and beaming or shining 
into the minds of such persons upon then- liearing or pe- 
rusal, and affecting them with a sense of these perfec- 
tions, both in what is spoken, and in the majestic and 
God-becoming way of speaking : They speak as never 
man spake ; the matter spoken, and the manner of speak- 
ing, has a greatness discernible by a spiritual understand- 
ing, that fully satisfies it, that God is the speaker. And 
all the impressions of God's wisdom, faithfulness, omni- 
science and majesty, that are stamped upon the matter 
contained in the scripturesj being conveyed only by the 
word, do join the impressions that are upon the word, 
and strengthen the evidence they give of their divine 
original, since these impressions do not otherwise ap- 
pear to our minds, or affect them, than by the word. 
The word, by a God-becoming manifestation of the 
truth, that scorns all these little and mean arts of in- 
sinuation, by fair and enticing words, and artificially 
dressed up argumentations, with other the like confes- 
sions of human weakness, that are iti all human writings, 
commends itself to the conscience, dives into the souls 
of men, into all the secret recesses of their hearts, guides, 
teaches, directs, determines and judges in them, and up- 
on them, in the name, majesty and authority of God. 
And when it enters thus into the soul, it fills it with the 
light of the glory the beamings of those perfections 
upon it, whereby it is made to cry out, The voice of 
God and not of man, 

8. This power, whereby the word evidences itself to 
be the word of God and not of man, is nothing else 
save that authority and awful efficacy, Avhich he puts 
forth in and by it over the minds and consciences of - 
men, working divinely, and leaving effects of his glori- 
ous and omnipotent power in them and on them. It en- 
ters into the conscience, a territory exempt from the 
authority of creatures, and subject only to the dominion 
of God, it challenges, convinces, threatens, awakens, 
sets it a roaring, and the creation cannot quiet it again. It 
commands a calm, and the sea, that was troubled be- 
fore, is smooth, and devils and men are not able to dis- 
turb its repose* It enters into the mind, opens its eyes^ 



386 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING. 



fills it with a glorious, clear, pure and purifying light, 
and sets before it wonders before unknow n, undiscerned 
in counsel and knovvledge, concerning God, ourselves, 
our sin, our duty, our danger, and our relief, the works, 
the ways, the counsels and purposes of God. It speaks 
to the will, converts it, and powerfully disengages it from 
w hat it was most engaged to, what it embraced, and was 
even glued to before, so that no art or force of elo- 
quence, argument, fear or hope, could make it quit its 
hold ; it makes it hastily quit its embraces, and turn its 
bent another way, the quite opposite, and with open 
arms embrace what nothing could make it. look to be- 
fore, takes away its aversion, makes it w^illingly not on- 
ly go, but run after what it bore the greatest aversion (o 
before, and obstinately refuse to close with any other 
thing. It enters the affections, makes them rise from 
the gi'ound, gives them such a divine touch, that, 
though they may through their fickle nature, be carried 
at a time by force another way, yet they never rest, but 
point heavenward. It comes to the soul, sunk under the 
pressure of unrelievable distresses, sticking in the miry 
clay, refusing comfort, and in appearance capable of 
none, it plucks it out of the clay, raises it out of the 
honible pit, sets its feet upon a rock, fills it with joy, yea 
makes it exceeding joyful, while even all outward 
pressures and tribulation continue, yea are increased. It 
enters into the soul, lays hold on the reigning lusts, to 
which all formerly had submitted, and that with delight ; 
it tries and condemns those powerful criminals, makes 
the soul throw off the yoke, and join in the execution 
of its sentence against, and on them. Now where the 
case is thus stated, how can the soul, that feels this power- 
ful word, that comes from the Lord most High, do other- 
wise than fall down, and own, That God is in it of a 
truth, 

9. Whereas some may hereon object, " That many, 
who have for a long time heard and perused this 
word, have not perceived this light, nor felt this pow- 
^' er, and, on this supposition, seem exempted from 
any obligation to believe the word." I answer. 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 387 



(1.) Many Avho have spent not a few years in prying 
into the works of God in the world, have not discerned 
to this day the beaming evidence, and clear declarations 
of his glory in them ; yet none will hereon say, that they 
are excusable, or that want of an evidence is chargea- 
ble on the works of God. And why should not the case 
be allow ed the same as to the word ? May they not have 
this evidence, though men do not discern it ? And may 
not men, even on account of this evidence be obliged to 
believe them ? 

(2.) No wonder many discern not this light, and are not 
affected with it, since all men have put out their own 
eyes, or impaired by their own fault, that faith or pow- 
er of discerning the voice of G od, speaking either by his 
word or works, which our natures originally had. In 
many this evil is increased, and this power further weak- 
ened by their shutting their eyes, and enteilaining of 
prejudices manifestly unjust, againrt God's word and 
works. Others turn away their eyes, and will not look 
to, or attend to the word in that way wherein God or- 
dains them to attend to it, that they may discern its light, 
and feel its power. And God has hereon judicially 
given many up to the power of Satan, to be further 
blinded. And no wonder they, whose eyes the God of 
this world has blinded, should not discern the glory of 
the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God shining in- 
to their minds, 

(3.) No wonder they should not discern tliis ; for God 
to this day has not given them eyes to see, ears to hear, or 
hearts to perceive. It is an act of sovereign grace, which God 
owes to none, to open their eyes, which they have wil- 
fully blinded : and where he sees not meet to do this, it 
is not strange, that they are not affected with the clearest 
evidence. 

(4.) Light, how ever clear, cannot of itself supply the 
defect of the discerning power. The sun, though it 
shines, cannot make the blind to see. The word has this 
light in it, though the blind see it not ; yea I may ad- 
venture to say, that the w^ord of God contained in the 
scriptures, which he has magnified above all his name, 
has in it more, and no less discernible evidences of thie 



38B 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



divine perfections, and consequently of its divine origi- 
nal and authority, than the works of creation, some of 
which are sufficient to carry in some conviction of God 
ia it, even on the minds of those who are not savingly 
enlightened, if they attend but to it in the due exercise 
of their rational abilities, that is, in such a manner as they 
do, or may attend to it, without saving illumination, lay- 
ing aside Avilful prejudice ; which though it w ill not be 
sufficient to draw such an assent, as will engage and ena- 
ble them to receive the scriptures, in a due manner, to 
the glory of God, and then- own salvation, and comply 
w ith them, yet I conceive it will be sufficient to justify 
ugainst them the word's claim to a divine original, and 
cut them off* from any use of, or excuse from a plea of 
the want of sufficient evidence of the divine original of 
the word. I doubt not, but many of these, who upon 
conviction said, that Christ spake as never man sjpake, were 
strangers to saving illumination, and yet saw somewhat 
of a stamp and impress of divinity in what he said, and 
the manner of saying it, that drew this confession from 
them, that rendered them inexcusable, in not listening 
to him, and complying with his word. Yea I doubt not, 
that the case will be found the same as to many, w ith re- 
spect to the written word, and Avould be so to all, if the}' 
seriously, and without wilful prejudices, attended to it. 

10. I further observe, That to engage to this assent, it 
is not requisite, that every one feel all these, or the like 
particular effects at all times, but that the word have this 
power and put it forth, as occasion needs, and circum- 
stances requires it. 

Having thus explained, we are now to prove our as- 
sertion " That the ground whereon we are in duty bound 

to believe and receive the word of God as his word, 
" and not the word of man, and whereon all who have 
" received, and believed it in a due manner, to the glory 

of God and their own salvation, do receive it thus, is 
" the authority and veracity of God speaking in and by 
" the word, and evidencing themselves by that light and 
" power^ which is conveyed into the soul in and by the 

scriptures, or the. v/ritten word itself," 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 389 



Many arguments ofTer themselves for proof of this im- 
portant assertion, which hitherto we have explained ; 
some of the most considerable of them I shall shoi tly 
propose, without insisting largely on the prosecution de- 
signing only to hint the arguments that satisfied me, that 
I was not mistaken as to the grounds whereon, by the 
foreinentioned experience, I was brought to receive the 
scriptures as the word of God. 

A rg. 1.- God ordinarily in the scriptures offers his 
mind, requiring us to believe, obey and submit to it up- 
on this and no other ground, viz. the evidence of his own 
testimony. The only reason commonly insisted on to 
warrant our faith, oblige us to believe and receive, is. 
Thus saith the Lord, 

Arg. 2. When false prophets set up their pretended 
revelations in competition with his word, he remits them 
to the evidence his words gave by their own light and 
power, as tiiat which w as sufficient to distiiiguisli and 
enable them to reject the false pretensions, and cleave to 
his word, Jer. xxiii, 26, 29. How long shall this be in the 
heart of the prophets that prophecy lies ? That are prophets 
of the deceit of their own hearts ; which think to cause my 
people to forget my name by their dreams, which they tell 
every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten 
my name for Baal, The prophet that hath a dream, let 
him tell a dream, and he that hath my word, let him speak 
my word faithfully : What is the chaff to the wheat; 
saith the Lord ? Is not my word like a fire, saith the Lord, 
and like a hammer that breaketh the mountains in pieces ? 
In the latter days of that church, when the people were 
most eminently perplexed with false prophets, both as 
to their number and subtilty, yet God lays their eternal 
and temporal safety or ruin, on their discerning aright 
between his word, and that which was only pretended 
so to be. And that they might not complain of this im- 
position, he tenders them security of its easiness of per- 
formance : speaking of his own word comparatively as 
to every thing that is not so, he says. It is as wheat to 
chaff, which may infallibly, by being what it is, be dis- 
cerned from it ; and then absolutely that it hath such 
properties, as that it w^ill discover itself, even light, heat 



390 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



and power. A pef son divinely inspired was to be at- 
tended to for no other reason, but the evidence of the 
word of God, distinguishing itself from the pretended 
revelations, and satisfying the mind about it, by its light 
and power. 

Arg. 3. When further evidence, as that of miracles, is 
demanded, as necessary to induce them that are unbe- 
lievers to receive and believe the word, it is refused, as 
what was not in the judgment of God needful, and 
would not be effectual ; and unbelievers are remitted to 
the self-evidence of the word, as that which would satis- 
fy them, if any thing would. This our Lord teaches 
clearly in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Luke 
xvi, 27, to the end. The rich man being disappointed 
as to any relief to himself, in the preceding verses, is 
desirous of preventing the ruin of his brethren, and for 
this end is concerned to have them induced to believe. 
To which purpose he proposes, ver. 27, the sending of 
Lazarus from the dead to certify them of the reality of 
eternal things : / pray tJiee therefore Father, says he to 
Abraham, that wouldest send him to my fathers house : 
for I have Jive brethren ; that he may testify unto them, lest 
they also come to this place of torment, Abraham saith un^ 
to him. They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear 
them. And he said. Nay, father Abraham ; but if one rvent 
unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said un- 
to him, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will 
they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Here 
the case is plain. The rich man desires a miracle to sa- 
tisfy his brethren. This is refused, and they are remit- 
ted to Moses and the prophets, as what was sufficient. 
He insists, and thinks a miracle would be more satisfy- 
ing. This is still refused, and it is plainly taught, That 
where the evidence of the word of God will not induce 
or persuade to believe, the most uncommon miracles 
would not do it. 

Arg. 4. When the question is considered particular- 
Jy, 1 Cor. xiv. What gifts were most to the use of the 
church, the miraculous gifts of tongues, <fec. or the ordi- 
nary gift of prophecy, or preaching of the word? this last 
is preferred, as what was not only more useful for the 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH, 391 



edification of believers, but for inducing unbelievers to 
receive tlie word, and submit to it; and the way wherein 
it does tliis, is mentioned, which is no other than by its 
evidencing itself upon its naked proposal, in preaching, 
by its own light and power. Let the whole passage be 
considered from verse 22, but especially verse 24, 25. 
But if all proplusy, and there come in one that helieveth not, 
or unlearned^ he is convinced of ally he is judged of all: 
And thus are the secrets of his heart made man^est, and so 
falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report, 
that God is in you of a truth, 

Arg. 5. The constant practice of the apostles fully 
proves our assertion. The way they took to persuade 
the unbelieving world to receive the gospel, was not by 
proposing the arginiients commonly insisted upon now, 
for proving the truth of their doctrine, nor working, nor 
insisting upon miracles wrouglit by them, for confirma- 
tion of the truth, but by a hare proposal of the truth, and 
a sincere manifestation of it to consciences, in the name 
of God, they proceeded, and demanded acceptance ot it, 
as the word of God, and not of man ; and by this means 
they converted the world. And Avhen they did refuse 
it, tlms proposed, they shook off the dust of their feet foi' 
a testimony against them, and so laid tliem open to tiiat 
awful threatening of our Lord, of punishments more in- 
tolerable than those of Sodom and Gommorrah. 

Arg. 5. The experience of those who do believe 
aright, confirms it fully. However they may be re- 
lieved against the objections, and capacitated to deal 
with adversaries by other arguments and means, yet 
that whereon believers of all sorts, learned and unlearn- 
ed, lean, is the word of God evidencing itself unto theii* 
faith, by its own light and power. Tlie unlearned are for 
the most part capable of no other evidence, and yet upon 
this alone, in all ages, in life and death, in doing and suf- 
fering, they have evidenced another and great sort of sta- 
bility and firmness in cleaving to it, and sufiering cheer- 
fully for it, on this account only; than the most learned, 
who were best furnished with arguments of another na- 
ture, but wanted this : and indeed if this is not allowed 
to be the ground of faith, there can be no divine faith 
leaning upon a divine and infallible bottom ; and the 



392 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



vulgar, who are incapable of any other evidence, must 
rove in uncertainty, and jyiii their faith upon the sleeves of 
their teachers: but blessed be God, here is a ground suffi- 
cient to rest on, that will not fail. He speaks, and iiis 
sheep, notwithstanding that simplicity, which makes 
them contemptible in the eyes of the world, hioiv his 
voice, hear him, and follow it, and will not hearthe voice of 
a stranger. 

Prop. XI. " Whereas it may be pretended, that on 
" supposition of what has been now asserted, the people 
" of God, at times when they discern nut this light, feel 
" not this power, have no ground for their faith, with re- 
" spect unto these passages or portions of scripture, which 
" do not thus evidence themselves to be from God, at 
" the time of thek perusal, or of their hearing of tl;em, 
" by affecting the believer's mind, with a sense of ttis 
" divine light and power. In opposition to this objec- 
" tion, and for removing the ground of it, I offer the fol- 
" lowing truth, which afterwards . I shall clear. That 
" there is no part of the scriptures, in so far as God 
" speaks in them, but doth thus sufficiently evidence 
" his authority in its season, unto persons capable of 
" discerning it, and duly applying themselves in the way 

of the Lord's appointment, in so far as ttiey are at 

present concerned to receive, believe and obey it, in 
" compliance with their present duty, and reach the 

meaning of the proposition in and by the use of the 
" means of God's appointment." 

This objection has sometimes had a very formidable 
aspect to me, and therefore I shall distmctly propose, 
so far as the brevity designed will permit, the grounds 
whereon I was satisfied about the truth proposed in op- 
position to it, in the follo^ving explicatory and confirm- 
ing observations, referring for further clearing, as to the 
way wherein the Lord quieted me, and relieved me of 
objections, to the foregoing chapter. 

1 . We are to observe, that faith, or that power in 
man, whereby he assents to the truth upon testimony, is 
corrupted, as well as his other powers, by his fall. And 
though in believers it is renewed;, they receiving an un- 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 393 



derstanding, whereby they know him that is true, and 
know his voice from that of a stranger ^ yet even in them 
it is iinperfect, and habitually weak, they being re- 
newed but in part, and so knowing but in part, as it 
is with respect to his other powers, so it is as to 
this. And besides this habitual weakness, Avhich en- 
gages them to cry to the Lord daily for carrying on 
the work of faith with power ^ and an increase of faith to 
believe and live to God in a due manner; besides, I say, 
this habitual weakness, it is liable to various extraordi- 
nary incidental disorders, arising from inward and out- 
ward occasions, while the believer is here in this valley 
of tears, subject unto the miseries occasioned by the re- 
maining power of indwelling corruptions, which are in 
themselves restless, and raise many fogs, damps and 
mists to overcloud the soul : and by the violence of out- 
w^ard temptations, which Satan and the world throng in 
upon them, through the wise permission of God, for the 
exercise of their faith in this state of trial, the darknes is 
exceedingly increased, faith weakened, or at least straiten- 
ed as to its exercise. And by this means this spiritual dis- 
cerning is sometimes more and sometimes less obstructed 
and darkened. JVow if at such seasons, while the believer 
finds himself thus out of order, he cannot discern this 
evidence of the divine authority of the word, no not 
where it shines clearest, in so far as to quiet him, he has 
no reason to reject the word, or question it for want of 
evidence, but may be, and ordinarily believers are exer- 
cised in complaints of their own darkness, as the cause 
of their not discerning God in his word : Vitium est in 
organo, there is no fault in the word, but in the discern- 
ing power. The argument, if it be urged with respect 
to such a case as this, would prove that there is no light 
in the sun. 

2. The Lord's people, through the power of corrup- 
tion, and force of temptation, are often negligent and in- 
advertent, and do not apply their minds nor incline their 
hearts unto the word, with the attention necessary to dis- 
cern the evidence of God in the word ; and as a punish- 
ment of this, God withdraws, and leaves their minds un- 
der the darknesa they are hereby cast into, and then when 

50 



3^4 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



God passes by before, or on the right or left handy and 
worketh round about them, they cannot perceive hun. 
If we turn our back to the light, or shut our eyes, or will 
not be at pains to remove motes, or humors that obstruct 
our sight, no wonder w e do not discern the light. When 
w e have idols in our hearts and eyes, no wonder Ave see 
not God. If w e lay not aside the filthiness of olu' hearts, 
w e cannot receive the engrafted word, that is able to save 
our soids, in a due manner. 

3. Although the whole scriptiu'es come from God, and 
are his word, yet everyproposition contained in them, as 
it is a proposition in itself, expi essive of such a particular 
purpose or thought, is not his w^ord : for God sometimes 
tells us men's word's, and the devil's w ords. Now though 
God speaks them in so far as to teach us that they are 
Such person's w ords, yet the propositions in themselves 
are not to be received w ith faith ; but w e are only to as- 
sent to this upon the authority of God, that they said so 
and so : not alwavs that these are true ; for oftentimes 
in themselves they are false and pernicious. Now, evi- 
dence as to any more than the truth of God in the histo- 
rical narration of them, is not to be expected, nor are the 
scriptures to be impeached for want of it. 

4. Although every divine truth whicli God speaks, 
has equal authority, and sufficient evidence, yet every 
scripture truth has not a beaming evidence, equally 
great, clear and affecting. The scripture is like the 
heaven, another piece of divine w orkmanship. It is full 
of stars, every one of these has light sufficient to answer 
its own particular use for which it w as designed, and 
to satisfy the discerning and attentive beholder, that it 
is light ; but yet every one gives not a light equally 
clear, great, glorious, affecting and pow erful : There is 
one glary of the sun, another oj the moon, another of the 
stars : and one star excelleth another in glory ; and some- 
times the greatest light, if it is at the greatest distance, 
like the fixed stars, affect us less, and shine less clear to 
us, than w eaker lights, which, like the moon, are nearer. 
In tiie scripture there are propositions w hich tell us 
tliings, wliich though they are in their own place and 
proper circumstances, useful to them, for w4iom they 
-are particularly designed, and to their proper scope ; yet 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 395 



tliey are comparatively of less importance to us, as ac- 
C|uaintiiig usAvitli things of less considerable nature and 
use to us, and wliicli lie not so far out of our reach, be- 
ing in some measure known, or know able without di- 
vine revelation, though it was necessary, that in order 
to their particular use to us in our walk w ith God, they 
should be better secured, and offered us upon the faith of 
the divine testimony. Again, there are other proposi- 
tions, whicli hold foilh to us trutlis in their own nature 
of more importance, that lie further out of our reach, 
being neither known, nor indeed know able by us, with- 
out divine revelation ; and w^hich in our present cases 
and circumstances are more nearly suited to our case, 
and wherein tlierefore our present concernment doth 
more directly appear to be interested, and w hich there- 
fore impress us w ith, and leave in us effects more last- 
ing and discernible. Now it must be allow ed, that the 
truths of this last sort have an evidence more bright, 
great, affecting and sensible, than those of the former 
sort. 

5, Hereon sundry subordinate observations offer them- 
selves, w hich are of the greatest importance for clear- 
ing the difficulty under consideration. 1. Truths in 
scripture, or propositions acquainting us with things, 
otherwise in some respect w ithin our reach, and only 
vouched by God in order to the stability of our faith in 
them, (in so far as we are in practice obliged to lay 
w^eight on them) and to give us, not so much satisfaction 
as to their truth absolutely, as some additional security 
about them ; these cannot be supposed so discernibly to 
affect our minds, as truths of another nature, inasmuch 
as this additional evidence is more difficult to distinguish 
from the evidence we have otherwise for them. Besides 
that, God seeing that we are not so hard to be induced 
to a belief of them, or so liable to temptations that may 
shake our faith, sees it not meet to stamp such bright, 
lively and affecting impressions of himself on them ; 
for it is unworthy of him to do any thing in vain. 2. On 
the other hand, these propositions w^hich disclose the se- 
cret purposes, or knowledge of God, and things hid in 
it) that lie within the reach of no nwrtal, or perhaps no 



396 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



created understanding, without revelation, must make a 
more vivid and lively impression on the mind, as illumi- 
nating it with the knowledge of things, whereto it was, 
and by its own reach forever must remain a stranger. 
3. In like manner truths, wherein our eternal salvation, 
or present relief from incumbent trouble, is diiectly 
concerned, do more forcibly affect, and have a more 
powerful influence, than those which lie more remote 
from om* present use, of how great advantage so- 
ever in their proper place they may be. The moon, 
which points out my way in the night, guides me, and 
saves me from losing myself or my way, atthat tune affects 
me more than the light of the sun, which I have for- 
merly seen, but do not now behold ; though the moon 
comparatively has no light, and borrows that which it 
hath from the sun. In like manner, truths in themselves 
of less importance, and which derive all theii' glory from 
those that are more important, yet, when they suit my 
present case, affects me more, and then- evidence appears 
greater. Every thing u beautiful in its season. That 
there is such a city as Jerusalem, or that there was such 
an one, the scripture tells us. Of this we are otherwise 
informed, and are not likely to be tempted as to its truth ; 
this however is told us in the word, and therefore we are 
to receive it on the testimony of the word ; but the faith 
of it is not so difficult, on accounts mentioned ; it is not 
told but with respect to some particular scope, and we 
have only an additional security about it. Hereon our 
minds are not so illuminated, influenced, and affected 
with the discovery, as when God tells us, he was in 
Christ reconciling the world to himself. The discoveiy 
of this fills us w ith a sense of the glory of God, hitherto 
unknown, and that lay far out of the reach of vulgar 
eyes, or any mortal to discover, without divine revela- 
tion. And therefore the discovery affects the more. 
Again, I am perplexed about through-bearing in some 
particular strait ; a promise of grace to help in it, though 
it is of less importance than the forementioned discove- 
ry of reconciliation, and has no efficacy, light or glory, 
save what it derives from the former, yet coming in the 
season wlierein I am wholly exercised about it, and the 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 397 



case whereto it relates, it affects me more. 4. Where 
the same truth is at the same time discovered by differ- 
ent lights, it is not easy for persons, if not very discern- 
ing and attentive, to understand the distinct and parti- 
cular influence of the several lights ; such as that of na- 
tural light, human testimony, and revelation ; and yet 
each of them have their own particular use, which up- 
on its extinction would appear by the defect we would 
feel. 

6. With respect to truths of high importance, other- 
wise unknown, which affect our minds with the enrich- 
ing light of things, by us formerly not known or know- 
able, and which by their suitableness to present circum- 
^jtances, or exercise, do more strongly affiect with a sense 
of the divine authority, and illuminate the mind, there 
is no difficulty, save in the cases afterwards to be taken 
notice of, or the like. 

7. As to these truths and scripture propositions which 
relate to things not so remote from our apprehensions, 
or are not so suitable to our circumstances, at present, 
or discover things of less unportance to us, it is owned, 
that even real Christians who have faith, or a spiritual 
discerning, for ordinary, are not, upon hearing or read- 
ing them, struck or affected with so sensible, clear and 
affecting evidence of God, as they are in other scrip- 
tures of a different nature and relation, which arises 
from the nature of tlie truths in themselves, the manner 
and design of God in the delivery, our present circum- 
stances, the weakness and imperfection of our faith, the 
incidental indispositions we are under, and other causes 
which may be easily collected from what has been for- 
merly hinted in the preceding observations. 

8. All this, notwithstanding the least considerable of 
these truths, has sufficient evidence of the divine au- 
thority, that is, such an evidence as answers the design 
of God in them, and is able to determine the believer's 
assent, and oblige him to obey or submit, and is every 
way suitable to the weight that is to be laid on them, 
with respect to the scope they are mentioned for, and 
importance of the matter ; which though at all times it 
is not equally discernible, for the reasons abovemen- 



398 



AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



tioned, or others of a like nature ; yet in its proper 
s'eason it is observed by judicious, observing, and re- 
flecting Chi'istians. As for instance, when any of these 
truths, of the least apparent importance, are questioned 
by Satan or men, then the authority of God is felt to 
have that influence and awe upon the consciences of be- 
lievers, as will not allov/ them to part with the least hoof 
or shred of divine truth, and will make them, maugre 
all opposition, cleave to it, though it should cost them 
thek life. Likewise when the Spirit of God is to apply 
these truths to the particular scope at which he aimed 
in asserting them in the book of God, then not only 
have they such evidence as influences assent and adhe- 
rence, but emboldens the soul to lay that stress on them, 
which the case doth requii'e. 

9. Whereas neither our present imperfect state and 
capacities, the nature of the things, nor other ciixum- 
stances, allow of an evidence equally clear and great as 
in other truths, the wisdom and goodness of God, in 
consideration of this, to prevent the shaking, or at least 
failing of our faith, have as to these provided many 
ways for our security: As, 1. Though in the particular 
passages, such evidences shine not in themselves apart, 
yet there often appears a beaming light, when they are 
presented in reference to the scope intended by God> 
2. Other passages are joined with them, placed near 
them, and related to them, which have a further evi- 
dence of God, and though we cannot discern them when 
they are looked at abstractly, yet when w^e look to them 
in relation to these, on which they hang, and to which 
they are connected, w^e are satisfied. And I conceive 
there may be an eye to this, in dropping doctrinal pas- 
sages, and inserting them in scripture history. 3. This 
objection principally respects the Old Testament ; as to 
the divine authority of which we are particularly se- 
cured by plain and evident testimonies in the New Tes- 
tament. 4. Sometimes with such truths there are direct 
assertions of the Lord's speaking of them joined; of which 
there are many instances in the books of Moses, wiiere- 
in it is expressly declared, that what was then enjoined, 
w?is by tiie particular command of God. 5. Bclievei'^ 



THE REvVSON OF TRUE FAITH. 399 



for ordinary, beins;, in the reading of the word of God, 
made sensibleof his authority, Avill not be easily brought 
to admit of any suspicion, that a book wherein God 
shews himself so evidently concerned, and owns, as 
to the bulk, to be from him, is or can by him be al- 
lowed to be in other places filled up with propositions, 
or matters of a coarser alloy : And therefore they 
will rather question themselves, and their own igno- 
rance, than impeach the divinity of the scriptures on 
this account. 

10. Though no faulty obscurity is chargeable on the 
scriptures, (as much of them as in present circumstances 
is of absolute necessity to believers, in order to their 
acceptable walking with God, being clearly revealed) 
yet there are many truths not understood by all, nor 
perhaps by any, therein inserted, to leave room for the 
diligence, trial of the faith of Christians, then- progress 
in knowledge, and other wise ends. Now, till in the use 
of appointed means, the Spirit of God open to us the 
meaning of thes^ scriptures, we cannot perceive the light 
and power that is in them : but whenever he opens these 
scriptures, that same light tliat discovers the meaning, 
will not fail to affect, and make our hearts hum nithin 
us, with the sense of divine light, authority and power. 
Of this the experience of the people of God, as th^y 
grow in knowledge, furnishes them daily v» ith new in- 
stances, and therefore they do not stumble at the want 
of the present sense of this light, but are quickened to 
diligence, excited to frequent cries for opening of their 
eyes, that they may understand the wonders, that by 
the knowledge of other parts of the word they are in- 
duced to believe couched in these parts, which yet they 
know not. 

11. As has been more than insinuated, there are, in 
scripture, truths designed for, and suited to different 
persons, in different circumstances ; the book of God 
being designed for the use of the whole church, and all 
in it, in all statioas, relations, cases, temptations and dif- 
ferent circumstances, in which any are, have been in, or 
may be in. Now Avhen God speaks to one, what he 
says cannot be so affecting to another, no wise in the 



400 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 

same or like case ; though yet he may know somewhat 
of the Lord's voice in it. And the same is to be said 
as to the same person, with respect to difTerent cases. 

12. It must be still minded, that though every part of 
scripture has in its proper place and degree, a sufficient 
evidence of the divine authority, yet the actual discern- 
ing of it depends very much upon the present state of 
the discerning power or faith of the Christian, which 
discerns it or not, or discerns it more or less clearly, as 
it is stronger or weaker, more free from accidental in- 
dispositions, outward temptations, or more affected by 
them. And the same is to be said, as to its being more 
or less intently and orderly applied to the observation of 
the evidence of God in the word. 

1 3. Yet whereas they, who are once renewed, do con- 
tinue still children of the light, and have a spiritual ca- 
pacity of discerning the Lord's voice from that of a 
stranger, they do for ordinary, in the scriptures, find the 
authority of God evidencing itself suitably to the par- 
ticular exigence of their particular cases, where the 
truths that occur are not such wherein their present faith 
or practice is immediately affected ; or where the truths 
are such as to which, in their own abstract nature, no 
more is required save a bare assent, they being only in- 
sei ted with respect to some other particular scope, where 
the truths are not presently assaulted, where they are 
not immediately called to hazard much upon them, or 
in other the like cases, they are indeed less affected ; 
but one w^ay or other, from one thing or another, as 
much of God shines in them as is sufficient to engage to 
a present adherence, and some becoming reverence as to 
the oracles of God, which may in their season manifest 
their usefulness to us, and do at present manifest it to 
others. And where truths are of a different nature and 
importance, and suit present necessities, and require 
more distinct actings of faith or obedience, and we are 
called to lay more stress on them ; in that case the evi- 
dence of God shines more brightly. And scarce ever 
will a discerning and attentive Christian, Avho is not 
grievously indisposed by some casual disorder, read the 
scriptures, or any considerable part of them, but some 



THE REASON OP TRUE FAITH. 401 

Where or other, in the scope or particular words, and 
propositioas, or their contexture, some light will shine 
in upon the soul, enforcing a conviction. That God is in 
it of a truth. 

14. When the faith of the Lord's people is assaulted 
as to the truth of the word ; when in difficult cases and 
duties they are called to lay much stress upon the word, 
and hazard as it were their all ; when they are distress- 
ed with particular and violent temptations, and need 
comfort ; when under spiritual decays, and God designs 
to restore them ; when newly brought in, and need to 
be confimied ; when they are humble and diligent, and 
the Lord designs to reward them graciously, and en- 
courage them to go on ; when difficulted to find duty, 
and waiting on the Lord for light, in cases of more than 
usual importance ; when the Lord has a mind to caiTy 
on any to peculiar degrees of holiness and grace, and 
employ them in special services ; and, in a word, where* 
ever any extraordinary exigence requires, then the Lord 
opens his people's ears, removes what intercepts the dis- 
coveries of his mitid, fixes their ear to hear, and speaksi 
the word distinctly, powerfully and sweetly to the soul, 
and gives them in and by it, such a taste of his goodness^ 
wisdom, and power, and experience of his authority In 
the word, and his gracious design and hand in its appli- 
cation at present, as fills the soul witli the riches and /li/Z 
assurance of faithy peace, joy, and stedfastness in belieV'^ 
ing. 

Prop. XIL " Whereas there are different readings of 
^* particular places in ancient copies, and places wrong 
" translated in our versions, it may be pretended, that 
we are, or may be imposed upon, and assent to truths, 
or rather propositions, not of a divine original, casual- 
ly crept into our copies of the original, or translation.. 
" In answer hereto, the foregoing ground of faith lays 
" a sufficient bottom for the satisfaction of Christians, in 
" so far as their case and particular temptations re* 
^ quire." 



To clear this a little, I shall offer tlie emxiug re* 
marks : 51 



402 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



1. Where the authority of God evidences itself in the 
way above explained, and confirmed to the mind, be^ 
lie vers have a stable and sure foundation for their faith j 
whether they use translations or the originals ; though it 
must be allowed^ where persons are capable of it, the 
originals are most satisfying. And this is plainly the 
case, as all real Christians from certain experience know, 
as to all the truths of the greatest importance, and where- 
on our faith or obedience are more immediately or di- 
rectly concerned : so that as to these there is no room 
left for this objection. 

2. The wisdom of God has so carefully provided for 
the security and stability of our faith, as to particular 
truths of any considerable importance, against pretences 
of this, or alike nature, that our faith rests not upon 
the evidence of one single testimony, but such truths 
upon a variety of occasions are often repeated, and our 
faith leans upon them, not only as thus frequently re- 
peated, but cleared and confirn;ed by their connexion to 
other truths which infer them, and to the whole analogy 
of faith, or current of the scriptures, with respect to that 
which is the principal design of God. So that we are in 
no hazard of being deprived of any one truth, of any 
considerable influence, in faith or practice, by pretend- 
ed corruptions, or wrong translatioris. The famous Dr. 
Owen, A\ho had considered the whole various readings, 
and well knew^ the failures of particular translations, ob- 
serves, That were all the various readings, added to the 
worst and most faulty translation, the church of God 
would not sustain by it the loss of one important truth. 

3. Where any person is particularly concerned to be 
satisfied which is the right reading of any particular pas- 
sage, and how it ought to be translated, they may, by 
the help of the ministers of the gospel, such of them as 
are particularly fitted with skill in such matters, and by 
llie endeavors of learned men, who have particularly 
considered every one of these passages, in a humble de- 
pendence on G od for the blessing of these means, (which 
the wise God has multiplied, since difficulties of this sort 
began to create any trouble to the faith of his people) 
by these means I say, joined with an eye to the Lord, 



THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 403 

they may come to be particularly satisfied. Tf any man 
will do his will, he shall know the doctrine, whether it is of 
God. 

4. Where there is not access to these means, which 
will not readily happen to persons called to such exer- 
cise, (which rarely befalls the ordinary soil of Chris- 
tians) yet the Lord can easily relieve the persons thus 
exercised, by evidencing his authority to the conscience 
in a satisfying liglit, or by enabling him to wait for light 
until the solution comes, or by removing the temptation, 
when it becomes too strong, or by. leading him to rest in 
the particular truth, as secured by other passages not 
questioned, or by some such like. pay. 

5. The difficulty as to trajislations is really of less in> 
poilanee ; and as to the other about pretended corrup- 
tions,, ordinary Christians, whose consciences are daily 
affected with the^ evidence of God's, authority in the 
word^ and his owning it as his word, speaking by it to 
them, and conveying divine influences of light, life and 
comfort, will not fear or enteiiain any suspicion so un- 
worthy of God, as that he could allow the word he thus 
owns, under a pretence of his authority, to impose on 
them assertions of human extract, and of any ill conse- 
quence to their faith or obedience.. 

6. I shall only subjoin this one observation, That ene- 
mies gain more by proposing these pretended corrup- 
tions in cmnda,^ and in such a bulky way, as to aflright 
Christians who are capable of such objections, than by 
insisting upon any particular one, and attempts to prove 
them of equal authority with the reading retained in the 
approved originals. Their unsuccessfulness in endea- 
vors of this last sort discovers, that there Is really nothing 
of weight in that so much noised objection about vari^ 
ous readings : for if there were any such readings as 
could really make any considerable alteration, and were 
supported with any authority able to cope with the re- 
ceived readings, why do they not produce these 1 Others 
are of no consideration ; these only are to be regarded : 
and of this sort there are but very few that the most im- 
p.udent dare pretend ; and these few have been dis- 



404 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 



proved and disallowed by persons of equal capacity and 
learning. But to leave this, which is above the ordina- 
ry sort of Christians, the Lord's people, to whom he lias 
evidenced his own authority, in the way above mention- 
ed, will be moved with none of these things. They will 
not forego the word, but retain it as their life, and pay 
respect to it as the word of God ; and they have good 
reason to do so. 

I shall now obseiTe hence, 

1. How justly divine faith may be said to be infalli- 
ble, as standing on an infallible ground, the faithfulness 
and truth of God in the word. Through darkness we 
may sometimes not discern, through negligence not ob- 
serve, or through the force of temptations interposing 
betwixt us and it, we may lose sight of the evidence of 
this authority ; and so our faith may shake or fail. But 
w hile it fixes on this, it cannot fail, though we may quit, 
or by violence be beat off; the ground is firm, and can= 
not fail, the scriptures cannot be broken. 

2. Hence it is. That the meanest and weakest believ- 
ers, who know nothing of the props otliers have to sup- 
port them, do cleave as firmly to the word, run w ith ail 
courage, and much cheerfulness, all hazards for it, to the 
loss of whatever is dear to them, life not excepted, as 
the most judicious divine, and oftentimes they are much 
more firm. This is upon no other grounds accountable. 
This reason of faith is as much exposed to them as to 
the most learned. 

3. All objections arising against this ground of faith, 
will be easily solved, if we consider, 1. That the scrip- 
tures are a relief provided by sovereign grace, for those 
of the race of fallen man, to whom God designs mercy, 
and so God was not obliged to adjust it in all respects 
to the natural capacities of men in their present state, 
but it was meet that the word should be so writ, that 
room should be left for the discoveries of the sovereign- 
ty of grace, and the other means G od designed to make 
use of in sub^rerviency to the word. It was not meet nor 
necessary that all should be so proposed, as to lie open 
to men without the assistance of the Spirit, and without 
the ininistry of the word. 2. The word was not des^ign-e 
ed alone to* conduct us^ but God has given the Spirit with 



the; reason of true faith. 405 



the word, who teaches us in and by it, as he sees meet. 
3. The word is designed to be a rule to all ages, and 
therefore it was not meet or necessaiy, that what con- 
cerns persons in one age should be equally exposed in 
its meaning unto other persons, who lived in different 
tunes. It is sufficient, that in every age, what concerns 
that time lies so open, that in the use of the means of 
God's appointment, men may reach that wherein they 
are concerned. 4. The word was designed for persons of 
different stations, capacities and cases, who ought to rest 
satisfied in the obvious discoveries of what concerns 
them, in theii' own particular circumstances, and is re- 
quired to be believed and obeyed, more particularly in 
a way of duty, of them, though they cannot see so clear- 
ly what belongs to others in different circumstances. 
5. God has not systematically and separately discoursed 
all particular cases under distinct heads ; but to leave 
room for tlie conduct of the Spirit, for exciting the dili- 
gence of Christians to study the whole scriptures, and 
for other reasons obvious to infinite wisdom, he has di- 
gested them in a method, more congruous to these wise 
ends. 6. The Lord designing the exercise of the faith of 
his own, and to humble them, and to drive them to a de- 
pendence on himself, and to punish the wicked, and give 
them who will stumble at the ways of God somewhat to 
break their neck on, he has digested them so, as that 
there may be occasions, though always without fault on 
God's part, for all those ends : Wisdom will be justified 
of her children, and to some he speaks in jxirableSy that 
seeing they may not see. 




INDEX. 



OF THE 

Authors and Books quoted in the preceding Work. 



AlKENHEAD's Speech. 
Alcoran. 

Amyrauld de Religionibus. 
Aristotle's Ethicks. 
August, de Civitate Dei. 

Bayle's great Hist, and Crit. 
Diction. 

Baxter's Animad. on Herbert. 

De Veritate. 

Reasons for Christian 

Religion. 

More Reasons for 

Christian Religion. 

Becconsal on the Law of Nature. 

Blount's Oracles of Reason. 

Religio Laici. 

Boyle's Excellency of Theolo- 
gy beyond Nat. Philosophy. 

Burnet on the Thirty-Nine Ar- 
ticles. 

Csesar de Bello Gallico. 
Cicero's Tusculan Questions, 

De Natura Deorum. 

De Ligibus. 

De Amicitia. 

Clarkson's practical Divinity of 

the Papists. 
Claudian. 

Clementis Alexandrine Stro- 
mata. 

Clerc's (Le) Parrhasiana. 
' Comput. Histor. 

Collin's Discourses de Anima- 
bus Paganorum. 



Dacier's Plato. 
Deist's Manuel. 
Discourses on Moral Virtue, 
and its Difference from Grace* 
Dryden's Hind and Panther. 

Epictetus. 

Ferguson's Enquiry into Moral 
Virtue. 

Gale's Court of the Gentiles. 
Growth of Deism. 

Heid. (Abrah.) de Origin Er- 
roris. 

Herbert de Veritate. 

De Relig. Gent. 

• Religio Laici. 

Hornbeckde Conversione Gei5- 
tilium. 

Hieroclis Carmina Aurea. 
Hobb's Leviathan. 
Howe's Living Temple. 
Humphrey's Peaceable Dis- 
quisitions. 

Jamblichus de Vita Pythag, 
Jesuit's Morals, 

Laertius (Diog.) de Vitis Phii- 

losopliorum. 
Letter to the Deistf?. 
Limborch's Conference with 

Orelius the Jew. 
Locke on Human Understand* 



408 



INDEX. 



Locke's Reasonableness of 
Christianity. 

Maximus Tyrius* 

Nicol's Conference with ft 
Theist. 

Nyc (Stephen) on Natural and 
Revealed Religion. 

Ovid, de Ponto* 
' — — Metamorph. 
Owen on the Sabbath. 
— Theolo^jutn. 

on the Hebrews. 

— '■ — De Justitia Vindicat. 
Out ramus de Sacrificiis. 

Parker's (Sam.) Defence of 
Ecclesiastical Polity. 

Prudentius (Aurelius.) 

Fuff^ndorfF's Introduction to 
the History of Europe. 



Reflections on tie gt-owth of 

Deism. 
Remonstrant. Apologia; 
Rivet on Hosea. 
Rushworth*s Hist* Collections ^ . 

Seneca's Epist. 

Die Irai 

De Providentia.. 

Simplicius in Epictetum* 
Spinoza's Ethicka. 
Stanley's Lives. 
Stillin^eet's Origines Sacrae^, 

Tuckney's (Anth.) sermons. 
Turretine. 

Wilson's Scripturelnterpretef . 

Wolseley's (Sir Charles) Scrip- 
ture Belief. 

Videllii Arcana Arminianisjiii^ 
and his Rejoinder. 

Videlius Raphsodus, 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



A. 

Allen, Moses 
Adams, Peter 
Adams, William 
Allen, David 
Amian, Theodorus 
Adriance, Rem 
Adriance, Isaac R. 
Adriance, Abm. R. 
Adriance, Jacob T. 
Adrinnce, Theodorus 
Adams, Hiram 
Angevine, Caleb 
Angevine, Stephen 
Adriance, Parret 
Angevine, Eli 
Adriance, Chas. P. 
Adriance, Abm. 
Andrus, Luther 
Anderson, Alexr. 
Alexander, Rev. Caleb 
Adams, Jane 
Ackerman, John 



B. 

Bernard, J. 
Boardman, William 
Bradt, Albert 
Boyd, Peter 
Bentley, Randall 
Bradford, Rev. John M. 
Bronk, Robt. 
Beekman, Hannah 
Beitty, WilHam 
Burrows, Jabez 



Bennet, G. B. 
Boyd, James 

Blatchford, D. D. Samuel 
Bloodgood, Lynott 
Brown, S. R. 
Blanchard, William 
Bogardus, Cornelius 
Bogardus, Cornelius jun. 
Bogardus, William R. 
Brownell, T. C. 
Bullock, Matthew 
Brice, Robert 
Baker, John 
Brown John 
Buel, Jesse 

Brinckerhoff Derick A^ 
Brush, A. M. 
Brinckerhoff, George 
Berry, Nathl. 
Bogart, David R, 
Brill, John 
Burr, Oliver 
Beers, Andrew 
Brintnal, Wm. 
Bristoll, Moses 
Barker, Joseph 
Burr, Nathan 
Bockee, Abm. 
Baker, Thomas 
Baker, Samuel 
Booth, George 
Booth, Richd. 
Brooke, John 
Brow^n, David 
Bell, William 
Bloom, Mary 
Barnes, Daniel H» 
Bonner, Hendrick 



410 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES, 



Briggs, Mrs. Nancy 
Bailey, Esq. Theodonis 
Buchanan, James 
Bruen, Mathias 
Barker, Joshua 
Brill, Jacob 
Bacon, Esq. John 
Bissell, Josiah 
Beckworth, George 
Bork, Rev. Christian 
Browij> Lewis E. 



C. 

Clinton, Hon. De Witt 
Cuyler, John C. 
Carmichael, Daniel 
Cameron, James 
Clark, John 
Carson, Thomas 
Chester, John 
Cramer, Barnerd 
Conkling, jun. Daniel 
Coughtre, William 
Clifton Park Library 
Cooley, Jonathan 
Crane, Rev. Daniel 
Cook, Joseph P. 
Cuyler, Rev. Corns. C. 
Carman, Baltus and Thomas 
Carpenter, David 
Cary, Edward 
Clark, Rev. John 
Carpenter, Caleb J. 
Cox, jun. John 
Cuyler, Mrs. G. W, 
Cantine, jun. Peter 
Campbell, John 
Couenhoven, Christian 
Clark, Levi 
Clark, David 
Church, Giles 



D. 

Doige, Thomas 
Daniels, James 
Dunbar, jun. Robert 
De Witt, Simeon 
Dox, Peter P. 
Donnelly, Thos. 
Dole, Geo. 
Dunn, Christopher 
Doig, Peter 
De Pi'y, Jacobus 
Dickson, William 
De Witt, Abraham 
Doughty, Jacob 
Dwight, Prest. Yale College, 
[Rev. Timothy 
Deforest, Lockwood 
Dunham, James 
Darrow, John P. 
Dubois, Koert 

De Reemer, Samuel 2 copies, 
B'li'a mater. An thy, 
Deimbiirg, John 
Dubois, Matthew 
Dreyer Rev. John Henry 



E. 

Erwin, John 
Ely, John 
Epps, John 
Everest, Heran M. 
Erwin, John 
Earll, Sylvester 
Everett, John 
Ely, Samuel M. 
Elmendorph, Cornelius J. 
Ely, Aaron 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES 



411 



F. 

Fryer, Wm. 
Forman, Abraham 
Fox, Isaac B. 
Frisbie, John 
Fuller, Aaron 
Fuller, Gershom 
Eraser, Andrew 
Fitch, Josiah H. 
Fl:igler, Maria A. 
Foster, John 
Fullertoii, Andw. 
Fairley, Huo;h 
Fitch, Rev^ Ebenezer 
Fosdick, Lodowick 
Furman, Rich'd. 
Frederick, John H. 



G. 

Gibbons, James 
Groesbeck & Brothers, C. 
Grant, Alexander 
Guiteau, jun. Francis 
Gates, Gerrit 
Goodman, Simon 
Guest, jun. Henry 
Gansevoort, C. 
Garnsey, David 
Griffin, Catherine 
Griffin, William 
Geldersleeve, Solomon 
Green Nathl. C. 
Giry, John 
Graham, Adam 
Germond, William 
Gay, John B. 
Gelston, David 
Garkin, Wm. 
Gardner, James 



H. 

Hansen, Issac 
Hutton, Isaac 
Harbeck, Anna 
Humphrey, John 
'Hinckley, Gershom 
Hand, Aaron 
Hand, Nathan 
Hinckley, J. 
Heacox, Warren 
Halsey, jun. Luther 
Holliday, Rev. Thomas 
Holmes, Sheubel 
Humphries, Joseph 
Holkins, Abel D. 
Hasbrouck, Stephen 
Huntting, Ed. 
Hoag, Philip 
Halsey, D. Abm. 
Homan, Joel 
Hull, Henry 
Hulst, Henry 
Hayt, John 
Hillhouse, William 
Hotchkiss, Hezekiah 
Hotchkiss, Eli 
Harrison, Frederick 
Harris, Joseph 
Hebard, Daniel 
Hoffman, Robert 
Holmes, William 
Horgan, Laurence 
Hervey, Ralph 
Holmes, Joseph 
Husted, Thaddeus 
Hart, William 
Hard, Peter N. 
Hoffman, Zachariah 
Hofford, David 
Henry, John S. 
Haight, Mary C. 
Hamilton, Rev. T. 
Holbrook, Amos, 
Henry Sam'l. M. D. 
Hunn, John, 



412 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



I. 

James, "Wm. 
JohnstoD, Rev. John 
JacksoD, Jos. J. 
Jocelin, Simeon 
Ives, Eli 
J?.ckson, Daniel 
Jenkinson, William 



K. 

Kent, Chief Justice James 
Kane, James, 

Kitterid^e, Doct. Joseph D. 
Kirby, John 
Kimilyea, Simmons 
Keys, Rev. J no. 



L. 

Lansing, Sanders 
Lansing, H. 
Lansing, A. G. 
Linklean, J. 
Lansing, Cornelius 
Ladd, James 
Lucas, Isaac 
Lawrence, Thomas 
Latham, Thomas W. 
Lawrence, Richard 
Lawrence, George 
Livingston, Miss Cornelia 
L'vingston, Robert R. 
Livingston, Edward P. 
Lochead, Robert 
Logan, George 



Laight, Edward W. 
Lyon, David S. 
Lescalier Baron» 



M. 

McClelland, Robert, 
3IclDt}Te, Comptroller, Archi- 
[bald. 

Marvin, W. J. and A. 
McConaell, Jas. 
3IcJimsey, Rev. John 
McDonald, D. 
3IcMillan, John 
>IcIntosh, William 
McMurry, David 
Maullin, James 
Mounsey, Thos. 
''lonteath. Rev. Alexander 
^JcAuley, Thomas 
McCartee, Sarah 2 copies, 
McCulloch, Charles 
3Iurphy, John 
?>lcKoy, Robert 
3lc3Iillan, Alexander 
31erkle, Frederick 
Moak, Joseph 
3IcCowen, Alexander 
3Iiller, Christian 
3Iorrell, John W. 
Miller, David 
Marvin, Rev. Saml. 
Mix, John 
Munson, Elisha 
3Iarriam, James 
3[inturn, Nathl. G. 
3Iead, Joseph 
3Iartin, Jeremiah 
Mason, Joseph 
3Iott, Jacob E. 
McAlpin, James 
Mackey, Daniel 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



413 



Mott, Ebenezer 
McKeen, Levi 
McMurray, Rev. William 
Martin, John 
Massuoneau, Claudius G. 
Moore, George 
Monilaw, George 
McVey, Thomas 
Mulligan, Wm. C. 
M'Masters, Patrick 
M'Intosh, Allan 



N. 

Newman, Charles 

Neill, Rev. William 

Nott, Prest. U. Col. Eliphalet 

Niles, Samuel 

Nelson, Joseph 

Nitchie, Esq. John 

Nielson, W. 

Nicholson, J. W. 



G. 

Oothout, Abraham 
Oliphant, John 
Ostrom, John D. 
Osgood, S. 



P. 

Pearson, George 
Parker, Philip S. 
Perry, John 
Patterson, John 
Post, Jacob 



Patterson, Matthew 
Price, Edmund 
Peck, Nathan 
Park, Mary 
Plummer, William 
Philips & Howard 
Pardee, Stephen 
Patchin, John W. 
Post, jun. Henry 
Petrey, George 
Pardee, Rev. Amos 
Perrine, Rev. M. Lak 
Preston, John 
Peters, Henry 



a 

Ctuackenbusb, Nicholas 



R. 

Randel, Rebecca 
Riley, James V. S. 
Ramsey, John 
Ross, Wm. 
Roosa, Cornelius 
Rapalje, Richard 
Reed, Rev. John 
Reynolds, James 
Radcliff, William 
RadcHfF, jun. William 
Raynor, Olivia 



s. 

Sharpe, George 
Steele, jun. Elijah 
Stafford, Spencer 
Stafford, John 
Smith & Walker 
Smith, Stoddard 
Smith, Nathl. 
Sayre, Simeon 



414 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



Spafford, Horatio Gates 

Starkweather, Averj 

Staples, Abram 

Stillwell, William 

Scliermerhorn, Cors. 

Skinner, Jared 

Sillimon, Ebenezer H. 

Sanders, John [mew 

Schermerhom, Jun. Bartholo- 

Schuyler, John S. 

Skinner, TV illiam 

Swartwart, Jacobus 

Smith, James 

Stockholm, Phebe 

Shear, Elizabeth 

Storm, Thomas G. 

Storm, John 

Storm, Thomas J. 

Storm, Ida 

Sherman, Ebenezer 

Stoughtenburghj Andrew 

Silliman, Benj. 

Starr, 1. H. 

Spruill, George E. 

Social Library Co. 

Storm & Wilson 

Spencer, Bally A. 

S wart won t, John B. 

Slee, Samuel 

Smith, John D. 

Smith, Obed. 

Smith, William 

Shultzs, Jacob 

Shop, Henry 

Schenck, Peter H. 

Scott, James 

St. Leger, William 

Stoutenburgh, John 

Smith, Wm. 

Sanders, Ignatius S. 

S targes, George 



T 

Tompkin?, Gov. N. York, His 
[Excellency Daniel D. 



Thomas, Treas'r. N. Y. David 
Teller, Isaac 
Trotter, Gen. Matthew 
Thompson, Thomas 
Tayler, Hon. John 
Taylor, Robert 
Tits worth, John 
Tappen Elizabeth 
Travisj Letty 
Travis, Isaac 
Tappen, Christ. 
Towns, John 
Towner, William 
Torry, William 



V. 

Van Rensselaer, Gen. Stephen 
Van Rensselaer, Wm. P. 
Van Rensselaer, K. K. 
Van Kleeck, L. L. 
Van Loon, Peter 
Vedder, Alexander 
Visscher, S. 
Ver Velin, Isaac 
Veeder, Simon 
Van Vranken, Maus 
Vrooman, John S. 
Veeder, Gerrit S. 
Van Rensselaer, Mayor of AI- 
[bany, Hon. Philip S. 
Van Wie, Frederick 
Van Volkenburgh, James 
Van Wvck, Sarah 
Van Wyck, Rich'd. T. 
Van Rensselaer, Jer. 
Vincent, Leonard 
Van Cott, Joseph 
Vanderbilt, Philip 
Van Kleeck, Matthew 
Van Gaasbeck, Thomas 
Van Ness, David 
Veeder, John V. 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



415 



Underhlll, David B. 



W. 

Westerlo, Rensselaer 
Walsh, Dudley 
Willet, Edward 
Washburn & Knower 
Wynkoop, James I. 
Woodworth, John 
Williams, Erastus 
Winne, Daniel I. 
W etmore, Israhiah 
W^endell, John T. 
Walker, Abraham 
Walley, Sebe 
Wands, James 2d 
Walley, Jacob 
Warren, William 
Wands, Junr. John 
Webb, Joseph 
Williams, Samuel 
Walsh, Hugh 
Whittlesby, Matthew B. 
Weed, John W. 
Wheeler, Russell C. 
Wildman, Joseph 



Willey, Sally and Mary, Van 
[Wyck 

Wright, Elijah 
Wodell, Joseph 
Weller, Catherine 
Walton, Henry 
AVheeler, Gam'l. 
Whitbeck, Miss Ann Maria 
Wheeler, Esq, Gideon 
Whiting, Esq. John 
Wing, William 



Y. 

Yates, John V. N. 
Young, John 
Young, James 
Yates, Junr. Henry 
Yates, Ann C. 
Yoemans, JMoses 



3i^77-6 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 244 491 4 



m 



